Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Bayer AG’s Empirical Analysis
14 F.3d 733 · 1994
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Maxwell Communication Corporation Homan Maxwell Communication Corporation Homan v. Societe Generale (1996), Conopco, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co. (1996)
31 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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. § 1064 (§ 14 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. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n · Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp. · Hartford Fire Insurance Co v. California Merrett Underwriting Agency Management Limited
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which — (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person ... shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“true conflict” under this definition than damages, for under either form of relief it would be theoretically possible for Delica to comply with both nations' laws by not using the trademark. There is no meaningful distinction between an injunction and damages for this purpose. The reasoning developed in the antitrust context in Hartford Fire is not “automatically transferable” to the trademark context:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McBee v. Delica Co.““It is one thing for the British underwriters in Hartford Fire to be barred under United States law from boycotting activity that they might be free to engage in without violating British law. But it is quite a different thing for the holder of rights in a mark under German law to be ordered by a United States court to refrain from uses of that mark protected by German law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.