Pure Foods, Inc. v. Minute Maid Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
214 F.2d 792 · 1954
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc. (1959), Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co. (1963)
62 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1115 (§ 33 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. § 1338
Relies on S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson · Kentucky River Mills v. Jackson · S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson · American Auto, Ass'n v. Spiegel
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * To authorize preventive relief through the issuance of an injunction proof of actual damage is not necessary, but the likelihood of damage is sufficient. (Citing many cases).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the sale * * * of any goods * * * likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers as to the source of origin of such goods * U.S. C.A. § 1114(1) (a). (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * *, it is true that an applicant registers a trade-mark in connection with particular goods specified in the certificate of registration, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1051, 1057. Plaintiff's registered trade-mark is limited to frozen juice concentrates. The remedies of an owner of a registered trade-mark, however, are not limited to the goods specified in the certificate but extend to any goods on which the use of an infringing mark `is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers as to the source of origin of such goods'”
2 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.