Eli Lilly Company v. Natural Answers Incorporated Brian a Feinstein’s Empirical Analysis
233 F.3d 456 · 2000
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Ty, Inc. v. The Jones Group, Inc. (2001), Scotts Company v. United Industries Corporation (2002)
27 federal appellate · 9 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. § 1065 (§ 15 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Relies on Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. · Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. · McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc. · Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen · Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., 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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person’s commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ustomers or prospective customers will see [DaimlerChrysler's] mark used by other persons to identify other sources on a plethora of different goods and services. The unique and distinctive significance of the mark to identify and distinguish one source may be diluted and weakened. But no confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or connection has occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“by the use of reproductions, copies, counterfeits, or colorable imitations of registered marks.”
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.