Parker v. Google, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Pennsylvania Eastern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)
Relies on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. · Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman · Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America · Westinghouse Securities Litigation Md · Stanford Shane v. William Fauver James Barbo Rogers Director of Custody
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the defendant uses a false designation of origin; (2) that such use of a false designation of origin occurs in interstate commerce in connection with goods or services; (3) that such false designation is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of the plaintiffs goods and services by another person; and (4) that the plaintiff has been or is likely to be damaged.”
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.