![campbell hausfeld air compressor 3.5 11 campbell hausfeld air compressor 3.5 11](https://www.ubuy.co.it/productimg/?image=aHR0cHM6Ly9tLm1lZGlhLWFtYXpvbi5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL0kvNjE2UnppdG9ELUwuX0FDX1NMMTIwMF8uanBn.jpg)
![campbell hausfeld air compressor 3.5 11 campbell hausfeld air compressor 3.5 11](https://mastertoolrepair.com/images/WL600702_WL600602_WL600802_parts.jpg)
The verbal approval purportedly occurred at a meeting in December 1990 and over the telephone in January 1991. Sanborn contends that Campbell's apparent reliance on verbal approval from UL concerning its labeling is belied by the documentary record and deposition testimony.
![campbell hausfeld air compressor 3.5 11 campbell hausfeld air compressor 3.5 11](https://anyandallauctions.com/ItemImages/000001/1162c_lg.jpeg)
According to Sanborn, this discovery shows that Campbell did not have UL approval for the labeling it has been using. The parties have now conducted discovery of documents and witnesses at UL and one witness at Campbell. Campbell admits that the two models do not use ASME certified air tanks, but contends that UL has expressly approved use of its mark on the models as labeled and sold by Campbell. Sanborn alleges that the two Campbell air compressor models do not comply with this UL standard since they are labeled as having a horsepower greater than three and were manufactured after August 30, 1991, yet do not use an ASME certified air tank. The HL7023 is labeled as "5 Air Compressor HP Rating." The WL6007 is labeled as "3.5 Air Compressor Horsepower Rating." Campbell affixes a tag to both models indicating that they have been inspected and *653 approved by Underwriters Laboratories (UL).Īccording to UL standards, an air compressor labeled as having a horsepower greater than three and manufactured after Augmust use an air tank certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Campbell sells two models, one identified as Model HL702300AJ (the HL7023) and the other as Model WL600700AJ (the WL6007). Briefly, both Sanborn and Campbell manufacture air compressors and sell them to retail outlets throughout the United States. The statement of facts in the prior two orders is incorporated herein by reference. Subsequently, the parties have conducted additional discovery. On April 8, the court denied Campbell's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Sanborn's motion for Rule 11 sanctions. On March 10, the court denied Sanborn's motion for a temporary restraining order which sought essentially the same relief requested here. This is the third motion brought in this case commenced on January 15, 1992. Now before the court is the motion by Sanborn for a preliminary injunction. § 1125(a), violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. (Sanborn) brought this action against Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Company (Campbell) alleging deceptive advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Mark Gregory Schroeder, Alan Hall Maclin, Briggs & Morgan, St. Maertens, Fredrikson & Byron, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff. SANBORN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff,ĬAMPBELL-HAUSFELD/SCOTT FETZER COMPANY, Defendant.