Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Leftwich v. Harris-Stowe State College · Haroco Incorporated v. American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago · Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix Inc. · Carley Gracie v. Rorion Gracie
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Diana, Princess of Wales' had taken on a meaning other than identification of an individual,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“( Id. at p. 1189.) The court also noted that the false advertising claim was groundless because the statements at issue were true, and the Fund presented no evidence to cast doubt on their veracity. The court concluded that the claim also was unreasonable because the Fund”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In contrast, [the Fund's] claims for dilution and false advertising were groundless and unreasonable. Unlike the endorsement claim which could be considered argument for an extension of existing law, the dilution claim had no legal basis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.