Stuart v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• the word “coop” is widely used and relatively weak and is therefore not likely, when used in a composite mark, to attract the public’s attention
• plaintiff equipment dealer was not injured by alleged boycott by manufacturer, because dealer was able to purchase equipment at comparable cost from other dealers
• “It is also indisputable that the government’s taking of possession put the collateral beyond the reach of any interest that plaintiff may have had.”
• federal common law, not Article Nine of the UCC, determines the government’s claim of vesting of title in government contractor’s inventory
• “The term ‘fact of damage’ refers to causation and simply means ‘that the antitrust violation cause injury to the antitrust plaintiff.’ ” (quoting Alabama v. Blue Bird Body Co., Inc., 573 F.2d 309, 317 (5th Cir.1978).)
• Merritt, Jones and Weick, JJ.