Hain Pure Food Co., Inc. v. Sona Food Products Company
HAIN PURE FOOD CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SONA FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
This case involves alleged trademark infringement by Sona Food Products Company (“Sona”) arising from the label, trademark and trade dress used on various of its food products.
The district court entered a summary judgment which 1. granted a permanent injunction in favor of Hain Pure Food Co., Inc. (“Hain”);
2. declared Sona liable for damages;
3. declared that Hain was entitled to an accounting for damages; and 4. denied Hain’s request for attorney fees.
Sona appeals from that part of the summary judgment holding it liable for damages and Hain cross appeals for the denial of its attorney fees. Sona does not appeal from the granting of the permanent injunction.
The appeal must be dismissed because the court lacks jurisdiction. In holding that Hain was entitled to damages and an accounting for those damages, the court bifurcated the trial into the separate issues of liability and damages. Because the determination of liability, alone, is not a final judgment under the circumstances of this case, this court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 744 , 96 S.Ct. 1202, 1206 , 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976);
Garzaro v. University of Puerto Rico, 575 F.2d 335, 337 (1st Cir. 1978).
See also United States v. Burnett, 262 F.2d 55, 59 (9th Cir. 1959). The parties have not called to our attention an applicable exception to this rule or any extraordinary circumstances which would permit this court to assume jurisdiction under § 1291.
Interlocutory appeals are permitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 but neither subsection of that section is applicable here. The trial court has not certified an interlocutory appeal pursuant to § 1292(b). Furthermore, § 1292(a)(1) pertaining to appeals from the granting of injunctions is not applicable because Sona is not appealing from that part of the summary judgment which permanently enjoins it from employing Hain’s label, trademark or trade dress.
The district court’s denial of Hain’s request for attorney fees is likewise not a final judgment.
The appeal and cross appeal are DISMISSED.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 16 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- The Warehouse Restaurant, Inc., and Burt H. Hixson v. The Customs House Restaurant, Inc., and Edward Engoron, the Warehouse Restaurant, Inc., a Calif
- Warehouse Restaurant, Inc. v. Customs House Restaurant, Inc.
- Michael Vadar v. Ron Angelone Albert Peralta George Weeks
- Marathon Oil Co. v. United States
- Stevenson v. General Motors Corp.
- Millmen Local 550, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Afl-Cio v. Wells Exterior Trim
Most recent
- Murchison v. Inter-City Mortgage Corporation Profit Sharing & Pension Plans
- Donald John Helow, Sr. v. Donald John Helow, Jr.
- L. Joseph Albright v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America and Gte Government Systems Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
- Michael Vadar v. Ron Angelone Albert Peralta George Weeks
- Raco Car Wash Systems, Inc. v. Walt Smith, Bill Stieren, S-4 Car Wash, Incorporated, Galesburg Manufacturing Company, D/B/A Water Wiz Car Wash, Raco Car Wash Systems, Incorporated v. Walt Smith, Bill Stieren, S-4 Car Wash, Incorporated, Galesburg Manufacturing Company, D/B/A Water Wiz Car Wash, Individually
- Brown v. United States Postal Service
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.