Court Opinion

ID: 9637638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:13:30.212434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:58.359284
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
MAJOR, Circuit Judge.
We have before us a.petition for rehearing, as well as a form of enforcement decree proposed by both petitioner and respondent. We are.of the opinion that the decree proposed by the respondent is in conformity with our opinion. We held that the cease and desist order, concerning petitioner’s product, when used under “boundary” conditions, was without substantial support. To go further is to enter a controverted field where we are not permitted, and did not intend, to enter. In other words, the testimony as to the effect of the product in question under “full film” conditions is in dispute and we did not hold that the evidence was insufficient to sustain respondent’s order in this respect. The decree proposed by the petitioner, as contended for in its petition for rehearing, would require a holding in its favor when its product is used under “full film” as well as under “boundary” conditions. This argument was given due con*902sideration in the opinion and decided adversely to petitioner.
Our attention is called to an apparent error on page 2 of the opinion. The controverted issues are there stated under subdivisions (b), (d) and (e), which should be (d), (e) and (f). (b) is therefore eliminated and there is inserted in its place:
“(f) That an automobile conditioned with ‘Koatsal’ can run an amazing distance without oil in the crankcase without damage to any part.”
The petition for rehearing is denied, the decree proposed by petitioner refused, and that proposed by respondent approved.