Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc., s. 83-1077
| Decision Date | 22 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | 83-1111,Nos. 83-1077,s. 83-1077 |
| Citation | 721 F.2d 253 |
| Parties | DEERE & CO., Appellant, v. FARMLAND, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Theodore R. Scott, McDougall, Hersh & Scott, Chicago, Ill., L.R. Voigts, Nyemaster, Goode, McLaughlin, Emery & O'Brien, Des Moines, Iowa, for Deere & Co.; John M. Nolan, Deere & Company, Moline, Ill., of counsel.
Alan G. Carlson, Earl D. Reiland, Douglas J. Williams, Merchant, Gould, Smith, Edell, Welter & Schmidt, Minneapolis, Minn., for Farmland, Inc.
Before ROSS, McMILLIAN and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Deere & Company brought this action against Farmhand, Inc. under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 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).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aurora World Inc. v. Ty Inc.
...Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 170, 115 S.Ct. 1300 (citing Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 F.Supp. 85, 98 (S.D.Iowa 1982), aff'd, 721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir.1983); Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 35 F.3d 1527, 1532 (Fed.Cir.1994); Nor-Am Chemical v. O.M. Scott & Sons Co., 4 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1......
-
Goscicki v. Custom Brass & Copper Specialties
...v. B.I. Industries, Inc., 226 U.S.P.Q. 244 (N.D.Ala. 1985); Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 F.Supp. 85 (S.D.Iowa 1982), aff'd, 721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir.1983); Keene Corp. v. Paraflex Industries, Inc. 653 F.2d 822 (3rd cir.1981); Damn I'm Good, Inc. v. Sakowitz, Inc. 514 F.Supp. 1357, 1360 (......
-
Deere & Co. v. FIMCO Inc., CASE NO. 5:15–CV–105–TBR
...concentrates much of its response comparing this case to Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc. , 560 F.Supp. 85 (S.D. Iowa 1982), aff'd , 721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1983), a 1982 district court case in which the court found that the color green used by John Deere was aesthetically functional because "f......
-
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., In re
...preparation". 265 U.S. at 531, 44 S.Ct. at 617. In Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 F.Supp. 85, 217 USPQ 252 (S.D.Iowa 1982), aff'd, 721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir.1983), the court refused to enforce the color "John Deere green" as a common law trademark for front end loaders on the bases that the......
-
CHAPTER 12 - § 12.05
...Prods. Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159, 169 (1995).[52] Id. at 169-70; Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 F.Supp. 85, 98 (S.D. Iowa 1982), aff'd, 721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1983) (permitting competitors to copy the green color of farm machinery because customers wanted their farm equipment to match); B......