finding that there is "`no effective way to measure the loss of sales or potential growth — to ascertain the people who don't knock on the door or to identify the specific persons who do not [return] because of the existence of the infringer'"
Summary of this case from Medcare HMO v. BradleyNo. 84-443.
November 13, 1984.
C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 732 F. 2d 452.
finding that there is "`no effective way to measure the loss of sales or potential growth — to ascertain the people who don't knock on the door or to identify the specific persons who do not [return] because of the existence of the infringer'"
Summary of this case from Medcare HMO v. Bradleyaffirming district court's refusal to allow intervention where potential intervenor failed to demonstrate interest relating to transaction forming subject matter of action
Summary of this case from Matter of Summit Ridge Apartments, Ltd.Full title:MORIAL ET AL v. UNITED GAS PIPE LINE CO
Court:U.S.
Date published: Nov 13, 1984
Under the Illinois Anti-Dilution Act, the relevant factors to be considered by the court are: (1) the…
U.S. v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc.See Fed.R.Civ.P. 24, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules 1966 Amendment at 100-01 (West 1993); New Orleans…