opinion: Frank J. SIRAGUSA et al., Appellants, v. The TRAVELODGE CORPORATION, Appellee.
  No. 21815.
  United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
  Nov. 16, 1965.
  Hugh P. Carter and Jennings, Carter & Thompson, Birmingham, Ala., for appellants.
  Drayton T. Scott, Birmingham, Ala., Arch R. Tuthill, John J. Waller, Los Angeles, Cal., L. Murray Alley and Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner & Clark, Birmingham, Ala., Flint & MacKay, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel, for appellee.
  Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and RIVES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The appellants complain of the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama permanently enjoining them from using the name “TraveLodge” or any name similar thereto, in connection with any motel, motor hotel, restaurant or related activity. The appellee, The TraveLodge Corporation, instituted the litigation claiming that the appellants had violated its registered service mark and were engaged in unfair competition in the use of such mark. The appellants claimed prior use of the mark in Alabama, the right to the exclusive use thereof within the State of Alabama, and fraud on the part of the appellee in the procurement of its registered service mark. By counterclaim, appellants also sought an injunction prohibiting use of the mark by appellee in Alabama, cancellation of appellee’s mark, or in the alternative, to exclude use thereof by the appellee in Alabama or at least in Birmingham.
  The facts were fully developed during the trial. There were a number of witnesses and numerous exhibits. We have carefully examined the record and given full consideration to the contentions of the parties. We agree with the opinion and judgment of the district court. The TraveLodge Corporation v. Siragusa, et al., D.C., 228 F.Supp. 238 (1964). The judgment is therefore
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities private attorney or law firm media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools) housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. information processing consulting security and/or maintenance service other service (including accounting) other (including a business pension fund) unclear