Newton v. Thomason’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 1455 · 1994
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Warren III v. City of Carlsbad (1995), Moore v. Keegan Management Co. (1996)
24 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1407
Relies on Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Van Dusen v. Barrack · Leroy v. Great Western United Corp. · G-K Development Co. v. Broadmoor Place Investments · Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the strength of the plaintiffs mark; 1 2) relatedness of the goods; 3) similarity of the marks; 4) evidence of actual confusion; 5) marketing channels used; 6) likely degree of purchaser care; 7) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; 8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when reviewing federal claims, a transferee court in this circuit is bound only by our circuit's precedent”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he signature of an attorney or party [on a legal filing] constitutes a certificate ... that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”
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.