Yameta Co. v. Capitol Records, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | Docket 32203.,No. 479,479 |
| Citation | 393 F.2d 91 |
| Parties | YAMETA CO., Ltd. and Jimi Hendrix also known as Jimmy Hendrix, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Appellants, v. CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. and PPX Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Appellees, and Edward Chalpin and Curtis Knight, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Solomon Granett, New York City (Halperin, Morris, Granett & Cowan, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant-appellee Capitol Records, Inc.
Elliot Hoffman, New York City (Beldock, Levine & Hoffman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant-appellee PPX Enterprises, Inc.
Henry W. Steingarten, New York City (Steingarten, Wedeen & Weiss, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees-appellants Yameta Co., Ltd. and Jimi Hendrix.
Before MOORE, WOODBURY* and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Defendants Capitol Records, Inc. and PPX Enterprises, Inc., appeal from an order made and entered on February 14, 1968, as modified by a memorandum dated February 19, 1968, granting to plaintiffs a preliminary injunction and plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of said order, as modified, as denied relief requested under the First, Second and Third causes of action in plaintiffs' complaint.
Upon the law and the facts order reversed and preliminary injunction vacated, bond to remain in full force and effect. However, it appearing to the court that exceptional and meritorious reasons exist which require a trial as soon as possible of the issues here presented for an equitable disposition thereof, it is ordered that the case be referred to the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for such preference as he may see fit. See Calendar Rule 10(e) of the Calendar Rules for the Southern District of New York. Pending such disposition as may be made of this case, the parties are directed to keep, maintain and preserve such statistical information as may be necessary to accurately reflect the sales of the records in issue.
* Of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. National Video, Inc.
...Inc., 658 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1981); Yameta Co. v. Capital Records, Inc., 279 F.Supp. 582, 586 (S.D.N.Y.), rev'd on other grounds, 393 F.2d 91 (2d Cir.1968). The Act has therefore been held to apply to situations that would not qualify formally as trademark infringement, but that involve un......
-
Kamakazi Corp. v. Robbins Music Corp.
...the determinative factor as discussed in Yameta Co. v. Capital Records, Inc., 279 F.Supp. 582 (S.D.N.Y.), rev'd on other grounds, 393 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1968), and Shaw v. Time-Life Records, 38 N.Y.2d 201, 379 N.Y.S.2d 390, 341 N.E.2d 817 (1975). In Yameta Jimi Hendrix had an exclusive record......
- United States v. Scaccia
-
Arnesen v. Raymond Lee Organization, Inc.
...649, 651 (3rd Cir., 1954). In Yameta v. Capitol Records, Inc., 279 F.Supp. 582 (S.D.N.Y.1968), inj. vac. and remanded for hearing, 393 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1968), the Court found that the legislative history of the Lanham Act indicates that it was meant to protect both "consumers and competitor......