holding undisturbed. Civil Rights Act of 1991, § 101, 105 Stat. 1071. See also H.R.Rep. No. 102-10(1), 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 92 (1991), reprinted in 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 549, 627-631. 9 . Although it is possible that the 1991 amendment to § 1981, Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071, was intended to create a tort remedy for victims such as Spencer, the court believes that Congress would not have departed so abruptly from current decisional law without stating explicitly that it was doing so. For the text of the amendment, see supra note 7. 10 . Plaintiffs argue that Mahone’s interpretation of the "equal benefit" clause is foreclosed by the interpretation given a similar clause in § 1985(3), the "equal protection of the laws” clause, in Griffin, 403 U.S. at 97, 91 S.Ct. at 1795 (<HOLDING>). Unlike § 1981, however, § 1985(3) contains
holding that the fourteenth amendment protects property interests however only from a deprivation by state action holding that there is nothing inherent in the phrase that requires the action working the deprivation to come from the state holding that state action occurs when inter alia the party charged with the deprivation is a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase recognizing that where the marks share a word or phrase but are otherwise different the plaintiff is not pmmitted to claim a right to all variant of the phrase in a specific market