Elec. Corp. of Am. v. Honeywell, Inc., 487 F.2d 513 (1st Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Elec. Corp. of Am. v. Honeywell, Inc., 487 F.2d 513 (1st Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Clamp-All Corporation v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (ca1, 1988-06-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clamp-All Corporation v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute
1st Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482 (1st Cir.1981) (plaintiff sought overturning of Samson Crane; court acknowledged merit of plaintiff’s position, but declined to express an opinion); Electronics Corporation of America v. Honeywell, Inc., 487 F.2d 513, 514 (1st Cir.1973) (“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”); see also Camel Hair and Cashmere Institute of America, Inc. v. Associated Dry Goods, 799 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.1986) (harm is of…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schroeder v. Lotito (2×)
D.R.I. · 1983 · confidence medium
Electronics Corp. of America v. Honeywell, Inc., 487 F.2d at 513.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Salomon/North America, Inc. v. AMF Inc.
D. Mass. · 1980 · confidence medium
On appeal, the First Circuit expressly declined to agree with the district court’s “conclusion that palming off is not an essential element of a Lanham Act claim,” but “only because such a stance is not necessary for the decision of this appeal.” 487 F.2d 513, 514 (1st Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960 , 94 S.Ct. 1491 , 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974).
discussed Cited "see" Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Armatron International Inc.
D. Mass. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Electronics Corporation of America v. Honeywell, Inc., 358 F.Supp. 1230 (D.Mass.), aff'd per curiam, 487 F.2d 513 (1st Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960 , 94 S.Ct. 1491 , 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974).
cited Cited "see" Burndy Corp. v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.
D. Conn. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Electronics Corp., 487 F.2d 513, 514 .
cited Cited "see" Skil Corporation v. Rockwell International Corp.
N.D. Ill. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Electronics Corporation of America v. Honeywell, Inc., 358 F.Supp. 1230, 1232-1233 (D.Mass.1973), aff’d per curiam, 487 F.2d 513 (1st Cir. 1973). y.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
HONEYWELL, INC., Defendant, Appellee
73-1260.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Mar 4, 1974.
487 F.2d 513
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.
Coffin, Mc-Entee, Campbell.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
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.