Court Opinion

ID: 9445697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:36:42.643168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:22.998813
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
It seems to me that the findings of the district court come near to negativing its conclusion that there is no confusion or reason for confusion between what the defendant is engaged in and what the plaintiffs are engaged in. To stress the slight difference in the names of the two insurance companies is to beg the question. To consider the similarity of names of other insurance companies is to invoke immaterial comparisons. I agree that whether an accused party is appropriating or attempting to appro*173priate the good will and the good name of another is a question of fact. The excluded evidence of the results of the survey should, I think, have been admitted as bearing upon that issue. The reasons given by the majority for rejecting the evidence should, in my opinion, go to its weight and not to its admissibility. I respectfully dissent.
Rehearing denied;
JONES, Circuit Judge, dissenting.