Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Straus Frank Company v. Brown, 169 So. 2d 77.

14 citing documents.

Chinchuba Inst. v. St. Tammany Parish Bd. 664 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
On a motion for summary judgment, , (1964), the trial and the intermediary courts determined plaintiff's inability to prove fraud on the part of defendant was fatal to its request for injunctive relief and dismissed the lawsuit.
Seafood Restaurant Services, Inc. v. Bonanno 665 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
[5] In reaching this conclusion, , (1964).
Gulf Coast Bank v. Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Co. 652 So. 2d 1306 La. 1995
[*] , (1964), requiring one to prove fraud in a suit seeking an injunction against alleged trade name infringement.
Gulf Coast Bank v. Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Co. 641 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
(1964), fraud is required where plaintiff relies on the secondary meaning doctrine to support its requested injunction.
Barrera v. Ciolino 636 So. 2d 218 La. 1994
Radiofone, Inc. v. Mobile-One Sound, Inc. 628 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
In a deviation from the federal jurisprudence, our Supreme Court has added an additional requirement: “In this state it is a prerequisite to injunctive relief that fraud be established on the part of the defendant and the burden of establishing that fraud is upon the plaintiff.”
Merit Indus. Constr. v. JE Merit Constr. 563 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Head v. Waggoner 552 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
La. St. Optical of Jefferson Par., Inc. v. LA. STATE OPTICAL OF KENNER, INC. 469 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Elle, Ltd. v. Elle Est 388 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Plaintiff’s legal argument is that the word elle (French for she) has been so appropriated by it as to have a widely accepted secondary meaning on account of which defendant may not use that word in its trade name Elle Est. Plaintiff argues that it should not have to prove fraud to prevail, as required in Straus Frank Co. v. Brown, 1964, , .
Sadie's, Inc. v. Hitchcock 363 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
§ 90 Trade Marks, Trade Names and Unfair Competition, pp. 321-22; , (1964).
Couhig's Pestaway Company, Inc. v. Pestaway, Inc. 278 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
(1964), did not involve an interpretation of LSA-R.S.
United Distributors, Inc. v. United Distributing of Shreveport, Inc. 273 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Home Beverage Service, supra ; , (1964).
Boogie Kings v. Guillory 188 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
1083 , ; , ; Home Beverage Service v. Baas, 210 La.