Lunsford Richardson Preyer

After a patent trial, Preyer found the grass-shears patent valid and infringed and held the manufacturer directing the defense bound by the judgment.

Preyer entered declaratory relief recognizing the defendants' superior secured interest in an aircraft.

Preyer resolved an insurance-coverage dispute in the insurer's favor after finding no covered occurrence and no waiver of policy conditions.

“6. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction.”

“(The defendants’ operation is essentially a ‘dinette,’ while the plaintiff’s is a restaurant and drive-in business bearing little physical resemblance to defendants’ business. One of plaintiff’s witnesses testified that defendants’ sign ‘looks like one of ours 25 years ago.’ Plaintiff’s evidence also indicates that it has never conducted a ‘dinette’ type of operation. Also, defendants’ operation is a 24 hour business, seven days a week; plaintiff keeps hours that are normal to the general drive-in and restaurant business.) Under the law, and in equity, each party to the action is entitled to continue to use the words ‘Hot Shoppe’ or ‘Hot Shoppes’ provided such name is used in a manner to minimize the likelihood of confusion between plaintiff’s and defendants’ operation.”

“The defendant Turner moves to dismiss on the grounds that, (1) the complaint fails to state a claim against Turner; (2) that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties; (3) that the venue is improperly laid. We think the motion should be granted on the third ground — improper venue.”

“We believe these cases are pertinent in the instant case. We cannot say on the evidence presented that there is no genuine and material factual issue in the case, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment on the undisputed facts disclosed by the record. Moreover, in this instance we do not think that as a matter of justice and sound judicial administration the case as to the Government should be summarily disposed of, as will more clearly appear from the discussion following. The Motion for Summary Judgment is, therefore, denied. The Government is allowed the right to renew such motion after more evidence is received on the point.”

“The defendant moves for summary judgment on each of the three causes of action asserted by the plaintiff in its complaint. Plaintiff concedes that defendant’s motion should be granted as to the first cause of action but resists the motion on the second and third causes of action. We are of the opinion that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted as to the second cause of action but denied as to the third cause of action.”

“We hold that this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the action should therefore be dismissed.”

“The Court, therefore, concludes that an injunction should be granted.”

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. The Secretary’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Counsel are requested to prepare an appropriate judgment order.”

“Judgment for Plaintiffs.”

“*896We find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial examiner, and we must affirm his decision. Therefore, the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment is denied, and that of the defendant is granted. The defendant is requested to prepare an appropriate order.”