Red Lobster Inns of Am., Inc. v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Red Lobster Inns of Am., Inc. v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Vernon, No. 5:24-cv-00460 (W.D. Tex. June 12, 2025)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 969 Determining federal jurisdiction under trademark and declaratory judgment acts6 citing casesno jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking determination that no conflict existed between parties' marks because "opposition proceedings before the [PTO] did not constitute a claim of infringement and therefore did not present an actual controversy as required by the Declaratory Jud…1 citing court put it this way
  • Bell v. Accumetric LLC, No. 3:18-cv-03264 (N.D. Tex. July 30, 2019).
    Red Lobster Inns of Am., Inc. v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968, 969 (5th Cir. 1975).
  • Lewis E. Jones v. Clifford Alexander, 609 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1980).published
    Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 , 98 S.Ct. 768 , 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978); Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc. v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968, 969 (5th Cir. 1975).
  • Louis v. Meissner, 532 F. Supp. 881 (S.D. Fla. 1982).published
    See Seibert v. Baptist, 594 F.2d 423 , 428 n.17 (5th Cir. 1979) (citing Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc. v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968, 969 (5th Cir. 1975); Brown & Root, Inc. v. Big Rock Corp., 383 F.2d 662, 666 (5th Ci…
  • United States ex rel. David P. Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc. (Formerly Retail Credit Co.), 557 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1977).published
    See Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc. v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968, 969 (5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam): 10 C.
  • J & D Home Improvement, Inc. v. Basement Doctor, Inc., 90 F. App'x 616 (3d Cir. 2004).unpublished
    (no jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking determination that no conflict existed between parties' marks because "opposition proceedings before the [PTO] did not constitute a claim of infringement and th…)
  • Carl Michael Seibert v. D. T. Baptist, 594 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1979).published
    See, e. g., Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc. v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968, 969 (5th Cir. 1975); Brown & Root, Inc. v. Big Rock Corporation, 383 F.2d 662, 666 (5th Cir. 1967). 18 .
At page 968 PER CURIAM: By its Order of July 15, 1974, 1 entered after hearing, the district court granted the defendant, New England Oyster House, Inc.’s (New England)…2 citing casesopening of page *968 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Vernon, No. 5:24-cv-00460 (W.D. Tex. June 12, 2025).
    Red Lobster Inns of Am., Inc. v. New England Oys- ter House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968, 968 (5th Cir. 1975); RLI Ins.
  • Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Vernon, No. 5:24-cv-00460 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2024).
    Red Lobster Inns of Am., Inc. v. New England Oys- ter House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968, 968 (5th Cir. 1975); RLI Ins.
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The RED LOBSTER INNS OF AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEW ENGLAND OYSTER HOUSE, INC., Defendant-Appellee
74-3532.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 12, 1975.
Published opinion
524 F.2d 968
1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11485
Dean A. Olds, Chicago, 111., Eugene L. Heinrich, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Harold D. Jastram, Minneapolis, Minn., George T. Williams, Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant., Harry G. Carratt, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for defendant-appellee.
Gewin, Bell, Simpson.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

By its Order of July 15, 1974, [1] entered after hearing, the district court granted the defendant, New England Oyster House, Inc.’s (New England) Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff, The Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc.’s (Red Lobster) Amended Complaint and dismissed this cause for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to allege a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28, U.S.C., Section 2201. This appeal timely followed denial of plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the Order of Dismissal.

Red Lobster is a Florida corporation operating or franchising about 80 restaurants in Florida and in several other states along the Atlantic seaboard of the United States. New England is also a Florida corporation which operates about 20 restaurants mainly in Florida, and several at locations near Red Lobster restaurants. Jurisdiction was asserted[*969] under the trademark laws of the United States, Title 15, U.S.C., Sections 1051-1127 (the Lanham Act) and Title 28, U.S.C., Sections 1331 and 1338.

The relief sought by the complaint was a declaratory judgment that: (1) no conflict exists between plaintiff’s use of the name “Red Lobster” and its design and defendant’s use of “New England Oyster House” and its design; (2) plaintiff has a right to use a picture of a lobster in connection with its restaurant operations; (3) plaintiff’s federal registration No. 965,272 is valid and is plaintiff’s property, and (4) defendant’s opposition No. 53,411 in the United States Patent Office should be dismissed and the Patent Office directed to issue a registration of plaintiff’s pending applications for Class 100 registration of its mark, so as to permit restaurant services under said mark. [2]

We find no error in the trial court’s holding [3] that the opposition proceedings before the United States Patent Office did not constitute a claim of infringement and therefore did not present an actual controversy as required by the Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28, U.S.C., Section 2201, which act does not independently confer federal jurisdiction. Tilley Lamp Co. v. Thacker, 5 Cir. 1972, 454 F.2d 805; Brown and Root, Inc. v. Big Rock Corporation, 5 Cir. 1967, 383 F.2d 662.

As pointed out, both Red Lobster and New England were Florida corporations, so that further amendment in order to assert common law unfair competition diversity jurisdiction could not be sought. Red Lobster could rely only on the federal claim of infringement under the Lanham Act, which the opposition before the Patent Office would not support. Merrick, supra; Homemakers, Inc., supra; Acme Feed Mills, Inc. v. Quaker Oats Co., D.C.N.C.1970, 313 F.Supp. 1156.

The district court’s Order of Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

Affirmed.

1

. Reported at D.C., 378 F.Supp. 1144.

2

. New England is stated by the complaint to have originally filed opposition pleading in the Patent Office to both Class 100 (restaurant services) and Class 101 (franchising) registration of plaintiffs Red Lobster mark. Due to its failure to forward the correct filing fee in connection with its opposition New England was limited to opposition to either Class 100 or Class 101 registration by the Patent Office and elected to oppose Class 100 registration. The Class 101 registration was thus issued unopposed as No. 965,272.

3

. Relying principally upon Homemakers, Inc. v. Chicago Home for the Friendless, N.D.Ill.1970, 313 F.Supp. 1087 and Merrick v. Sharp and Dohme, Inc., 7 Cir. 1950, 185 F.2d 713.