Terrapin v. Krell ( 1992 )

USCA1 Opinion

        August 18, 1992         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                _____________________


        No. 92-1060

                               TERRAPIN SOFTWARE, INC.,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                KRELL SOFTWARE CORP.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Roney,* Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                            and Pieras,** District Judge.
                                          ______________

                                 ____________________

            Thomas L. Bohan with whom Chris A. Caseiro  and Thomas L. Bohan  &
            _______________           ________________      __________________
        Associates were on brief for appellant.
        __________
            Robert  S.  Hark with  whom  Elliott  L.  Epstein  and Isaacson  &
            ________________             ____________________      ___________
        Raymond were on brief for appellee.
        _______
                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________

        _____________________

        *  Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
        ** Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.

















               Per Curiam.    This is an appeal from a Maine District Court
               Per Curiam
               __________

          finding of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

             1051-1127, with  the  issuance of  a permanent  injunction and

          damages  in the  amount of  $10,750.00.  The  issue on  appeal is

          whether the trial  court erred  in determining that  there was  a

          likelihood  of  trademark   confusion.    The   determination  of

          likelihood of  trademark confusion is one  of fact that  is to be

          set  aside on appellate review  only if clearly  erroneous.  Keds
                                                                       ____

          Corp. v.  Renee Int'l Trading Corp., 888  F.2d 215, 222 (1st Cir.
          __________________________________

          1989).  We  have reviewed the parties  and record on  appeal, and

          find no clear  error.   We affirm  the judgment  of the  district

          court essentially for the reasons stated in the  district court's

          opinion and order dated  November 19, 1991.

               Affirmed.
               Affirmed.
               ________


























                                          2