Recot Inc v. Mc Becton’s Empirical Analysis
214 F.3d 1322 · 2000
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (2010), Cae Incorporated v. Clean Air Engineering Incorporated (2001)
34 federal appellate · 5 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
Relies on Dickinson v. Zurko · In re Gartside · In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. · Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice, Inc. · Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distributors, 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] strong mark ... casts a long shadow which competitors must avoid.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression; (2) the similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use; (3) the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels; (4) the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e., “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing; (5) the fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use); (6) the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods; (7) the nature and extent of any actual confusion; (8) the length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion; (9) the variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, “family” mark, product mark); (10) the market interface between applicant and the owner of a prior mark; (11) the extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods; (12) the extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial; and (13) any other established fact probative of the effect of use.”
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.