1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 808 F.2d
  5. 808 F.2d 291 (1986)
 

A.J. CANFIELD CO. v. HONICKMAN

No. 86-1033.

808 F.2d 291 (1986)

A.J. CANFIELD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. HONICKMAN, Harold, an individual and Concord Beverage Company, a corporation, Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided December 31, 1986.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard H. Compere (argued), Pamela J. Johnson, William Brinks Olds Hofer Gilson & Lione, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., Jerome R. Richter, James R. Kahn, Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Arthur H. Seidel (argued), Kathleen J. Gallagher, Seidel, Gonda, Goldhammer & Abbott, P.C., Hal A. Barrow, Garfinkel & Volpicelli, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.

Before BECKER, MANSMANN, Circuit Judges and TEITELBAUM, District Judge

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal concerns trademark rights in the phrase "Diet Chocolate Fudge Soda," the name of a drink with which Plaintiff-Appellant, A.J. Canfield Co. ("Canfield"), has recently achieved meteoric success. In the district court, Canfield sought a preliminary injunction barring Defendant Concord Beverage Co. ("Concord") from using this name in connection with a soft drink Concord sells in Pennsylvania, New Jersey...

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