Deere & Co. v. Farmland, Inc.

Eighth Circuit

Deere & Co. v. Farmland, Inc.

721 F.2d 253, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15084

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 22, 1983

Docket83-1077, 83-1111

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 721 F.2d 253 (Deere & Co. v. Farmland, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deere & Co. v. Farmland, Inc., 721 F.2d 253, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15084 (8th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Deere & Company brought this action against Farmhand, Inc. under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the common law of unfair competition. Deere sought to enjoin Farmhand from selling certain front-end loaders that Farmhand had copied from Deere and had painted “John Deere green.” Farmhand counterclaimed for damages and attorneys’ fees under the antitrust laws. After a non-jury trial, the district court, the Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, found in favor of Farmhand on the allegations of Deere’s complaint and in favor of Deere on the allegations of Farmhand’s counterclaim. Deere has appealed and Farmhand has cross-appealed.

We have carefully studied the record, including the trial court’s opinion, the briefs and the arguments of the parties to this action. We find no merit to the arguments for reversal of the decision below in any respect, and accordingly affirm pursuant to Rule 14 of the rules of this court on the basis of Judge O’Brien’s opinion. Deere & Company v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 F.Supp. 85 (S.D.Iowa 1982).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Deere & Company brought this action against Farmhand, Inc. under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the common law of unfair competition. Deere sought to enjoin Farmhand from selling certain front-end loaders that Farmhand had copied from Deere and had painted “John Deere green.” Farmhand counterclaimed for damages and attorneys’ fees under the antitrust laws. After a non-jury trial, the district court, the Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, found in favor of Farmhand on the allegations of Deere’s complaint and in favor of Deere on the allegations of Farmhand’s counterclaim. Deere has appealed and Farmhand has cross-appealed.

We have carefully studied the record, including the trial court’s opinion, the briefs and the arguments of the parties to this action. We find no merit to the arguments for reversal of the decision below in any respect, and accordingly affirm pursuant to Rule 14 of the rules of this court on the basis of Judge O’Brien’s opinion. Deere & Company v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 F.Supp. 85 (S.D.Iowa 1982).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

721 F.2d 253, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deere-co-v-farmland-inc-ca8-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack