Deere & Co. v. Farmland, Inc.
DEERE & CO., Appellant, v. FARMHAND, INC., Appellee
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).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 22 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals3
- Federal District Courts14
- Federal Specialty Courts3
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation
- Master Distributors, Inc., a New Hampshire Corporation v. Pako Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Pakor, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation
- Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Beautone Specialties, Co.
- Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
- Brunswick Corporation v. British Seagull Limited and Outboard Marine Corporation
- United Way of San Antonio, Inc. v. Helping Hands Lifeline Foundation, Inc.
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.