Wellness Publishing v. Barefoot’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Calder v. Jones · Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. · Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd. · Mellon Bank (East) Psfs, National Association v. Kenneth v. Farino Leslie Trinin Robert Levitas Eileen Michaels
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he advertisement in this case induced viewers to establish direct contact with [the defendant] by calling its toll-free phone number to place orders. This inducement destroys any semblance of the passive advertising addressed in Giangola, 753 F.Supp. at 155-56 , which expressly distinguished advertisements in the form of direct mail solicitations. For purposes of jurisdictional analysis, an infomercial broadcast that generates telephone customers is the equivalent of an interactive web-site through which a defendant purposefully directs its com mercial efforts towards residents of a forum state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“on remand the District Court may address the question of whether the individual defendants ... are not subject to personal jurisdiction because the relevant contacts were established in their roles as corporate officers.”
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.