← 115 F. Supp. 2d 800 - Microsoft Corp. v. Compusource Distributors, Inc.

115 F. Supp. 2d 800 - Microsoft Corp. v. Compusource Distributors, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

cited by 18 later decisions

January 2014

most recently cited

4 district ·

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (§ 7 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1118 (§ 36 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 502 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Alaska v. United States · F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“(c) Statutory Damages (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work. (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000 ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 775 F. Supp. 2d 613 - ALL-STAR MARKETING GROUP, LLC v. Media Brands Co.
“A claim for false designation of origin under section 43 of the Lanham Act arises when a person uses in commerce a word, term, name or symbol, or a false or misleading description or representation of fact which is likely to cause confusion or to deceive as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of goods. 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)(1). To establish a claim for false designation of origin, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the false designation has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce; and (2) the false designation creates a likelihood of confusion. See Johnson v. Jones, 149 F.3d 494, 502 (6th Cir.1998).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 312 F. Supp. 2d 779 - Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Service & Repair, Inc.
“must raise a genuine issue of fact as to (1) whether their use of the trademark was without the registered owner's consent, or (2) whether their unauthorized use was likely to cause confusion in the marketplace as to the origin or sponsorship of the product.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 197 F. Supp. 2d 1197 - Council of Better Bus. Bureaus v. Bailey & Assoc.

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.