SUBURBAN GAS SERVICE, INC. v. McCALL

Civ. No. 10000.

173 F.Supp. 182 (1959)

SUBURBAN GAS SERVICE, INC., Suburban Gas Heat of Astoria, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Corvallis, Inc., Suburban Gas Service of Cottage Grove, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of DeLake, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Eugene, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Enterprise, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Florence, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Hillsboro, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Lyons, Inc., Suburban Gas Service of McMinnville, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Newport, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Oakridge, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Pendleton, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Salem, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Seaside, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of St. Helens, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Springfield, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Sweet Home, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Tillamook, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Portland, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Longview, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Kennewick, Inc., Suburban Gas Heat of Vancouver, Inc., and Suburban Gas Heat of Walla Walla, Inc., corporations, Plaintiffs, v. W. Calder McCALL, an individual, and Atlas Gas Company, Atlas Gas Company of Beaverton, Atlas Gas Company of DeLake, Atlas Gas Company of Eugene, Atlas Gas Company of Gresham, Atlas Gas Company of Newport, Atlas Gas Company of Ontario, Atlas Gas Company of Pendleton, Atlas Gas Company of Salem, Atlas Gas Company of Seaside, Atlas Gas Company of Springfield, McCall Oil Co. of Cowlitz County, Inc., the Atlas Gas Corporation, and the Atlas Gas Company of Kennewick, corporations, Defendants.

United States District Court D. Oregon.

April 3, 1959.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Hart, Rockwood, Davies, Biggs & Strayer and Henry T. Lowe, Jr., Portland, Or., for plaintiff.

Moe M. Tonkon and Philip A. Levin, Portland, Or., for defendant.


SOLOMON, Chief Judge.

This case is before the court on the motion of defendants to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs, claiming jurisdiction under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 et seq., particularly §§ 1121 and 1126, seek damages and injunctive relief against defendants, alleging various acts of unfair competition. They also claim that defendants are infringing an unregistered trademark. There is no diversity of citizenship.<...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases