Deere & Co. v. Farmland, Inc., 721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Deere & Co. v. Farmland, Inc., 721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Beautone Specialties, Co., 82 F. Supp. 2d 997 (D. Minn. 2000)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 253 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Beautone Specialties, Co., 82 F. Supp. 2d 997 (D. Minn. 2000).published 2 cites
    See Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 35 F.3d 1527, 1531 (Fed.Cir.1994) (color black functional because of its color-compatibility and because it gives engines a smaller appearance); Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, 721 F.2d 253, 253 (8th C…
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DEERE & CO., Appellant,
v.
FARMHAND, INC., Appellee
83-1077, 83-1111.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Nov 22, 1983.
Published opinion
721 F.2d 253
1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15084
Theodore R. Scott, McDougall, Hersh & Scott, Chicago, Ill., L.R. Voigts, Nyemaster, Goode, McLaughlin, Emery & O’Brien, Des Moines, Iowa, for Deere & Co.; John M. Nolan, Deere & Company, Moline, Ill., of counsel., Alan G. Carlson, Earl D. Reiland, Douglas J. Williams, Merchant, Gould, Smith, Edell, Welter & Schmidt, Minneapolis, Minn., for Farmland, Inc.
Ross, McMillian, Bowman.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Deere & Company brought this action against Farmhand, Inc. under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the common law of unfair competition. Deere sought to enjoin Farmhand from selling certain front-end loaders that Farmhand had copied from Deere and had painted “John Deere green.” Farmhand counterclaimed for damages and attorneys’ fees under the antitrust laws. After a non-jury trial, the district court, the Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, found in favor of Farmhand on the allegations of Deere’s complaint and in favor of Deere on the allegations of Farmhand’s counterclaim. Deere has appealed and Farmhand has cross-appealed.

We have carefully studied the record, including the trial court’s opinion, the briefs and the arguments of the parties to this action. We find no merit to the arguments for reversal of the decision below in any respect, and accordingly affirm pursuant to Rule 14 of the rules of this court on the basis of Judge O’Brien’s opinion. Deere & Company v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 F.Supp. 85 (S.D.Iowa 1982).