U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1974

Electronics Corporation of America v. Honeywell, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Decided March 4, 1974 · Coffin, Mc-Entee, Campbell

487 F.2d 513 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Daniel F. Featherston, Jr., Boston, Mass., with whom Featherston, Homans, Klubock & Griffin, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for plaintiff, appellant., James W. Noonan, Boston, Mass., with whom Herrick, Smith, Donald, Farley & Ketchum, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for defendant, appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Clamp-All Corporation v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (1st Cir. 1988)
Getty Petroleum Corp. v. Bartco Petroleum Corp. (2d Cir. 1988)
Getty Petroleum Corp. v. Bartco Petroleum Corp. (2d Cir. 1988)
Edgar Alan Rickard, D/B/A Trader Publications of Alabama v. Auto Publisher, Inc., a Corporation (11th Cir. 1984)
Burndy Corp. v. Teledyne Industries, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1984)
St. Charles Manufacturing Co. v. Mercer (11th Cir. 1983)
Salomon/North America, Inc. v. AMF Inc. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1980)
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Apple (District Court, D. South Carolina 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After argument and studying the briefs, we have come to the conclusion that we cannot improve on the thoughtful opinion of the district court, 358 F. Supp. 1230 (D.Mass. 1973). We therefore affirm on the basis of that opinion. We add only two comments. The first is that appellant makes the pillar of its claim for punitive damages, fees, and costs, despite absence of any proof of actual damages, our statements in the prior case, Electronics Corporation of America v. Honeywell, Inc., 428 F.2d 191, 194 (1st Cir. 1970), that material misrepresentations “will damage” and that in a two-firm market “harm is sufficiently apparent” when such misrepresentations are made. While we cannot fault appellant for seizing on this language, we do not recant. When we spoke of the inevitability of harm we were not addressing the availability of damages but of relief. Because appel- *514 lee’s harmful conduct was discontinued and no actual damage was shown no further relief is indicated. Our second comment is that in relying on the district court opinion, we do not indicate necessary agreement with its conclusion that palming off is not an essential element of a Lanham Act claim. We say this only because such a stance is not necessary for the decision of this appeal.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.