
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 14, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2074                      SARAH WOOSTER D/B/A/ BOSTON HAIR COMPANY,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                          BOSTON HAIR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Sarah Wooster on brief pro se.            _____________            Gary R.  Greenberg, Janice  O. Fahey  and Goldstein  & Manello  on            __________________  ________________      ____________________        brief for defendants, appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  carefully the record  in                 __________            this case, the briefs of the parties and the findings of fact            and  ruling of law of the district court, dated September 23,            1994.    We  find no  clear  error  in  the district  court's            determination that  plaintiff/appellant  has failed  to  show            that she is  likely to demonstrate that  her use of the  name            "Boston  Hair  Company"  has acquired  a  secondary  meaning.            Therefore,  the  denial  of  her  motion  for  a  preliminary            injunction is affirmed.                          ________             
