Viacom Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2010
7 district · 3 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
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. · Goldstein v. California · Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provides that `[t]he owner of a famous mark shall be entitled ... to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use ... causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is said that to grant the injunction prayed for in this case is to give the statute a retroactive effect; that the contract, at the time it was entered into was not prohibited or declared illegal by the statute, as it had not then been passed, and to now enjoin the doing of an act which was legal at the time it was done would be improper. We give to the law no retroactive effect. The agreement in question is a continuing one .... Assuming such action to have been legal at the time the agreement was first entered into, the continuation of the agreement, after it has been de- dared to be illegal, becomes a violation of the act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ownership by a person of a valid registration ... on the principal register shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State and that seeks to prevent dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.”
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.