Wooster v. Boston Hair Company

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

March 14, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 94-2074

                      SARAH WOOSTER D/B/A/ BOSTON HAIR COMPANY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          BOSTON HAIR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Sarah Wooster on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Gary R.  Greenberg, Janice  O. Fahey  and Goldstein  & Manello  on
            __________________  ________________      ____________________
        brief for defendants, appellees.

____________________

                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  carefully the record  in
                 __________

            this case, the briefs of the parties and the findings of fact

            and  ruling of law of the district court, dated September 23,

            1994.    We  find no  clear  error  in  the district  court's

            determination that  plaintiff/appellant  has failed  to  show

            that she is  likely to demonstrate that  her use of the  name

            "Boston  Hair  Company"  has acquired  a  secondary  meaning.

            Therefore,  the  denial  of  her  motion  for  a  preliminary

            injunction is affirmed.
                          ________