Hamm

Hamm v. Knocke

Good Law
374 F. Supp. 1183·182 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 525·1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11876
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 1973Civ. A. F-564California2,955 words

Opinion

Opinion

Crocker, J.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This is a civil action wherein Phillip Hamm and Nina Hamm, his wife, the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit charge the sole Defendant, William M. Knocke, with infringement of their alleged service mark and trademark rights in the words DROWNPROOF and DROWNPROOF-ING and the like, charge' the Defendant with related unfair competition and also charge the Defendant with alleged infringement of a copyrighted motion picture.

2. Jurisdiction for this lawsuit is proper, as conceded by Defendant, under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a) & (b) for the trademark and service mark infringement claims as well as the related unfair competition claims — and — under 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a) for the copyright infringement claim.

3. Phillip M. Hamm and Nina A. Hamm own and operate a business identified by the trade name and service mark Little Folks Swim School located at 4048 East Butler Avenue, Fresno, California.

4. Among other business activities conducted at the Little Folks Swim School, Plaintiffs teach water survival lessons directed primarily at young people, to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.