Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 F.3d 562 - Kellogg Company v. Exxon

Kellogg Company v. Exxon’s Empirical Analysis

209 F.3d 562 · 2000

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
September 2024
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Moseley v. v. Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003), Bird v. Parsons (2002)

18 federal appellate · 4 district ·

540200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen · Wathen v. General Electric Co. · Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) strength of the senior mark; (2) relatedness of the goods or services; (3) similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) likely degree of purchaser care; (7) the intent of defendant in selecting the mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the senior mark must be famous; (2) it must be distinctive; (3) the junior use must be a commercial use in commerce; (4) it must begin after the senior mark has become famous; and (5) it must cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the senior mark.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “acquiescence is intentional. Acquiescence requires 'a finding of conduct on the plaintiff's part that amounted to an assurance to the defendant, express or implied, that plaintiff would not assert his trademark rights against the defendant.'”
    4 later decisions 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.