Allard Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Programming Resources, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
249 F.3d 564 · 2001
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Tana v. Dantanna's (2010), Earthquake Sound Corporation v. Bumper Industries (2003)
9 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (§ 7 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1065 (§ 15 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on United States v. Moored · United States v. Kikumura · Natural Footwear Limited v. Hart Schaffner & Marx Roots Inc a · United States v. Campbell · Sweetarts, a Corporation v. Sunline, Inc., and Menlo F. Smith
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]pon remand of a case for further proceedings after a decision by the appellate court, the trial court must proceed in accordance with the mandate and the law of the case as established on appeal. The trial court must implement both the letter and the spirit of the mandate, taking-into account the appellate court’s ' opinion and the circumstances it embraces.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]t common law, ownership of trademark or service mark rights is obtained by actual use. The first to use a mark in the sale of goods or services is the “senior user” of the mark and gains common law rights to the mark in the geographic area in which the mark is used. Ownership rights flow only from prior use — either actual or constructive. Federal registration of a trademark or service mark cannot create rights and priority over others who have previously used the mark in commerce, but federal registration is prima facie evidence of the registrant’s ownership and exclusive right to use the mark and constitutes constructive use of the mark.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“are always subject to any superior common law rights acquired by another party through actual use prior to the registrant's constructive use.”
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.