General
Elby's Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., et al. v. Frisch's Restaurants, Inc.
459 U.S. 916·Supreme Court of the United States·1982
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 81-2012.
Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., et al. v. Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[DISSENT — Justice White,]
Justice White,
dissenting.
One of the questions presented by this case is whether a district court’s finding of a likelihood of confusion for purposes of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a), is reviewable under the “clearly erroneous” standard, as a question of fact, or de novo, as a legal conclusion. Because there is a split in the lower courts on this question, compare Sun Banks of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 651 F. 2d 311, 314-315 (CA5 1981) (applying “clearly erroneous” standard); Squirtco v. Seven-Up Co., 628 F. 2d 1086, 1091 (CA8 1980) (same); Keebler Co. v. Rovira Biscuit Corp., 624 F. 2d 366, 377 (CA1 1980) (same), with Alpha Industries, Inc. v. Alpha Steel Tube & Shapes, Inc., 616 F. 2d 440, 443-444 (CA9 1980) (reviewing de novo court’s conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion); Blue Bell, Inc. v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc., 497 F. 2d 433, 435, n. 2 (CA2 1974) (same), I would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict.