Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, et al

Filing 920100105

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'Defendants do not argue that under the agreement related\
claims under state law fare any better than Lanham Act claims, nor\
do they argue that the settlement agreement permitted use of the\
GREAT CLIPS trademark only in specified parts of the country.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'No such evidence is identified in the defendants\' principal\
brief on appeal. In their summary judgment papers, the defendants\
said in general terms that if they did not prevail on summary\
judgment they wanted discovery, but without some indication that\
discovery had some prospect of being fruitful, such a boilerplate\
reservation is not enough to defeat summary judgment by the other\
side. See C.B. Trucking, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 137 F.3d 41,\
45 (1st Cir. 1998).\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "