Time, Inc. v. TIME INC.’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2001
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1065 (§ 15 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. § 1121 (§ 39 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1126 (§ 44 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hines v. Davidowitz · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Hurn v. Oursler · Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 776
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Time,” as plaintiff employs it being both an ordinary word as opposed to a coined word, and a descriptive word as opposed to a fanciful word, the protection necessary to be extended in order to avoid likelihood of confusion among purchasers, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114 , is properly limited at least to the area of news communication, if not to the narrower area of printed news magazines, where plaintiff has established some secondary meaning. Whatever confusion of the public results from the use of the word “Time” by organizations other than plaintiff is occasioned in part by plaintiff’s choice in selecting such a common word for its trade name and trade-mark. Since plaintiff cannot exclude the world from the use of so common a word as “Time,” non-competitors of plaintiff such as defendant truck line should be free to make any use of the word not likely to confuse.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is quite true that, just as a coined word is easier to protect than a word of common speech upon goods on which the owner has used it, so it is easier to prevent its use upon other kinds of goods. The proprietary connotation, “secondary meaning,” — of a word of common speech is harder to create and easier to lose, and its fringe or penumbra does not usually extend so far as that of a coined word.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““x x x ]^or js there any room to view state law as complementary to the Lanham Act in the face of undoubted Congressional intent to occupy completely a field to the full extent constitutionally permissible. * X -X ””
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.