Guy Edmond Weir v. Jerome J. Gordon

Sixth Circuit

Guy Edmond Weir v. Jerome J. Gordon

216 F.2d 508, 104 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 40, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4681

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 1954

Docket11995

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 216 F.2d 508 (Guy Edmond Weir v. Jerome J. Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guy Edmond Weir v. Jerome J. Gordon, 216 F.2d 508, 104 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 40, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4681 (6th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action for copyright infringement the district court, 111 F.Supp. 117, found that the appellant made copies of the principal features of the appellee’s copyrighted advertising material, and caused the same to be published for his own profit. We find that the district court’s controlling findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that the court correctly applied the law. Ansehl v. Puritan Pharmaceutical Co., 8 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 131. It follows that the judgment of the district court should be and it hereby is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this action for copyright infringement the district court, 111 F.Supp. 117, found that the appellant made copies of the principal features of the appellee’s copyrighted advertising material, and caused the same to be published for his own profit. We find that the district court’s controlling findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that the court correctly applied the law. Ansehl v. Puritan Pharmaceutical Co., 8 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 131. It follows that the judgment of the district court should be and it hereby is affirmed.

Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants- Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants

562 F.2d 1157 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)

Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald'S Corp.

562 F.2d 1157 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)

L & L White Metal Casting Corp. v. Joseph

387 F. Supp. 1349 (E.D. New York, 1975)

Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Newman Bros., Inc.

337 F. Supp. 859 (S.D. Ohio, 1971)

Baccaro v. Pisa

252 F. Supp. 900 (S.D. New York, 1966)

Davis v. EI DuPont De Nemours & Company

249 F. Supp. 329 (S.D. New York, 1966)

Lin-Brook Builders Hardware v. Evelyn Gertler and Irving Gertler, Individually, and Dba All-American Home Center

352 F.2d 298 (Ninth Circuit, 1965)

Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc., and Henry Glass & Co. v. Jobela Fabrics, Inc.

329 F.2d 194 (Second Circuit, 1964)

Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Sta-Brite Fluorescent Manufacturing Company

308 F.2d 377 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)

Doran v. Sunset House Distributing Corp.

197 F. Supp. 940 (S.D. California, 1961)

Massapequa Publishing Co. v. Observer, Inc.

191 F. Supp. 261 (E.D. New York, 1961)

Cash Dividend Check Corporation v. Davis

247 F.2d 458 (Ninth Circuit, 1957)

Cash Dividend Check Corp. v. Davis

247 F.2d 458 (Ninth Circuit, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 F.2d 508, 104 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 40, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guy-edmond-weir-v-jerome-j-gordon-ca6-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack