Fram Corp. v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis
230 F.2d 931 · 1956
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2002
9 federal appellate · 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))
Relies on Industrial Ass'n v. United States · Campbell Soup Co. v. Armour & Co. · Life Savers Corp. v. Curtiss Candy Co. · James Heddon's Sons v. Millsite Steel & Wire Works, Inc. · El Chico, Inc. v. El Chico Cafe
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he existence of a mere possibility of deception does not in and of itself constitute a basis on which to sustain a charge of unfair competition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sportswear Inc
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.