Task: songer_search

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court below improperly rule for the prosecution on an issue related to an alleged illegal search and seizure?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". If a civil suit brought by a prisoner or a criminal defendant in another action that alleges a tort based on an illegal search and seizure, also consider the issue to be present in the case.

PER CURIAM.
The appellants complain of the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama permanently enjoining them from using the name “TraveLodge” or any name similar thereto, in connection with any motel, motor hotel, restaurant or related activity. The appellee, The TraveLodge Corporation, instituted the litigation claiming that the appellants had violated its registered service mark and were engaged in unfair competition in the use of such mark. The appellants claimed prior use of the mark in Alabama, the right to the exclusive use thereof within the State of Alabama, and fraud on the part of the appellee in the procurement of its registered service mark. By counterclaim, appellants also sought an injunction prohibiting use of the mark by appellee in Alabama, cancellation of appellee’s mark, or in the alternative, to exclude use thereof by the appellee in Alabama or at least in Birmingham.
The facts were fully developed during the trial. There were a number of witnesses and numerous exhibits. We have carefully examined the record and given full consideration to the contentions of the parties. We agree with the opinion and judgment of the district court. The TraveLodge Corporation v. Siragusa, et al., D.C., 228 F.Supp. 238 (1964). The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court below improperly rule for the prosecution on an issue related to an alleged illegal search and seizure?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E