Rose Art Industries, Inc. v. Swanson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a single and continuing commercial expression.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Crafty Prods., Inc. v. Michaels Cos. · John Allan Co. v. Craig Allen Co. LLC

2. “(1) a prominent band that is either straight or wavy and often black in color that cuts across the middle of the front of the package, extending to the sides with the words “CRAYONS” or "WASHABLE MARKERS” or other descriptive term in white letters imprinted on the band (the "Band and Letter feature”); (2) a yellow background on the top of the package with a contrasting background color (either red, purple, pink, or a combination of purple fading to red) on the bottom of the package; and (3) a prominent display of the Rose Art logo in golden yellow (either foil or print) or red, either with or without a rainbow "swish” design behind the logo on the front of the package. In addition, in its presentation to the District Court, Rose Art included three other elements in its claim of infringement: (1) the statement "since 1923”; (2) the statement on the front of the package that the product is "Certified Non-Toxic;” and (3) the sentence inviting consumer comments, “Rose Art invites your comments and questions about this product. Please write to Rose Art Industries, Inc., Consumer Affairs, 6 Regent St., Livingston, NJ 07039 or call 1-800-CRAYONS.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster · Fair Wind Sailing Inc v. H. Dempster

3. “We review the District Court's order denying a preliminary injunction under an abuse of discretion standard, its factual findings under a clear error standard, and its findings of law under a de novo standard.” Rose Art Industries, Inc. v. Swanson, 235 F.3d 165, 170-71 (3d Cir.1999). Because the decision to enter a preliminary injunction is committed to the sound discretion of the court, we will reverse such a decision”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. R&B, Inc. v. Needa Parts Manufacturing, Inc.