Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD International Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 4 district ·

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

1. “Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or (b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or color-ably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided. Under subsection (b) hereof, the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 265 F. Supp. 2d 732 - Taylor Made Golf Co., Inc. v. MJT CONSULTING GROUP, LLC · 509 F. Supp. 2d 1247 - Hidalgo Corp. v. J. Kugel Designs, Inc.

2. “To understand what type of consumer confusion is actionable under the Lan-ham Trade-Mark Act, it is useful to review Congress’ purposes for enacting trademark legislation. Congress sought to protect two groups: consumers and registered trademark owners. In protecting these groups lawmakers recognized that every product is composed of a bundle of special characteristics. Consumers who purchase a particular product expect to receive the same special characteristics every time. The Lan-ham Act protects these expectations by excluding others from using a particular mark and making consumers confident that they can purchase brands without being confused or misled. Thus trademark law ensures consistency for the benefit of consumers. The Lanham Act also protects trademark owners. A trademark owner has spent time, energy and money in presenting a product to the public and building a reputation for that product. The Act prevents another vendor from acquiring a product that has a different set of characteristics and passing it off as the trademark owner’s product. This would potentially confuse consumers about the quality and nature of the trademarked product and erode consumer goodwill.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 290 F. Supp. 2d 1320 - Hbp, Inc. v. American Marine Holdings, Inc.

3. “Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which ... is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person ... shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 509 F. Supp. 2d 1247 - Hidalgo Corp. v. J. Kugel Designs, Inc.