Morse-Starrett Products Co. v. Steccone. Steccone v. Morse-Starrett Products Co

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that “[t]he 4 || procedure provided by rule 60(b) is not a substitute for an appeal”
• noting that trademark defendant must clearly notate the 15 required disclaimer in a manner that is not likely to disappear before it reaches the usual 16 consumer to “comply with the spirit of the original judgment”
• unexplained 22-month delay in 19 filing motion for relief was unreasonable
• insufficiently explained 22-month delay in bringing Rule 60(b) motion unreasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).