Wooster v. Boston Hair Company
Case Date: 03/14/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-2074
|
March 14, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-2074 SARAH WOOSTER D/B/A/ BOSTON HAIR COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. BOSTON HAIR COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Sarah Wooster on brief pro se. _____________ Gary R. Greenberg, Janice O. Fahey and Goldstein & Manello on __________________ ________________ ____________________ brief for defendants, appellees. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have reviewed carefully the record in __________ this case, the briefs of the parties and the findings of fact and ruling of law of the district court, dated September 23, 1994. We find no clear error in the district court's determination that plaintiff/appellant has failed to show that she is likely to demonstrate that her use of the name "Boston Hair Company" has acquired a secondary meaning. Therefore, the denial of her motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed. ________ |