| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value | - In substance it held that there was infringement and unfair competition, that the use of the term Sohio in marketing operations in plaintiff's territory was an inherent fraud on the plaintiff and its rights, that the plaintiff was not barred by laches, estoppel, unclean hands, or other equitable defenses from maintaining the action, and that the defendants should be enjoined from using the term
|
