Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Elby's Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc. v. Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. 459 U.S. 916

← Cases

Elby's Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc. v. Frisch's Restaurants, Inc.

459 U.S. 916 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1982-10-12 Docket No. 81-2012 English

Decision Majority · Dissent — White J.

Contents

Majority

p. 916
No. 81-2012.
Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., et al. v. Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

dissenting.

One of the questions presented by this case is whether a district court’s finding of a likelihood of confusion for pur

Dissent — White J.

p. 917
poses of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1125 (a), is reviewable under the “clearly erroneous” standard, as a question of fact, or de novo, as a legal conclusion. Because there is a split in the lower courts on this question, compare Sun Banks of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 651 F. 2d 311 , 314-315 (CA5 1981) (applying “clearly erroneous” standard); Squirtco v. Seven-Up Co., 628 F. 2d 1086 , 1091 (CA8 1980) (same); Keebler Co. v. Rovira Biscuit Corp., 624 F. 2d 366 , 377 (CA1 1980) (same), with Alpha Industries, Inc. v. Alpha Steel Tube & Shapes, Inc., 616 F. 2d 440 , 443-444 (CA9 1980) (reviewing de novo court’s conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion); Blue Bell, Inc. v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc., 497 F. 2d 433 , 435, n. 2 (CA2 1974) (same), I would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict.

Cases cited

  • 651 F. 2d 311 651 F. 2d 311 p. 917
  • 628 F. 2d 1086 628 F. 2d 1086 p. 917
  • 624 F. 2d 366 624 F. 2d 366 p. 917
  • 616 F. 2d 440 616 F. 2d 440 p. 917
  • 497 F. 2d 433 497 F. 2d 433 p. 917

Statutes and regulations cited