Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
295 F.3d 623 · 2002
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Miller v. Calhoun County (2005), Carter v. University of Toledo (2003)
41 federal appellate · 8 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. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1119 (§ 37 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc. · Sammye R. Holloway v. Sally Brush Clermont County, Ohio · Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby's Big Boy of Steubenville, 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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the strength of the plaintiffs mark, (2) the relatedness of the goods or services offered by the plaintiff and the defendant, (3) the similarity of the marks, (4) any evidence of actual confusion, (5) the marketing channels used by the parties, (6) the probable degree of purchaser care and sophistication, (7) the defendant’s intent in selecting its mark, and (8) the likelihood of either party expanding its product line using the marks.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he significance of its presumed strength will depend upon its recognition among members of the public. Treating a valid, incontestable mark ás an exceptionally strong mark for the purpose of determining whether confusion is likely to occur, without examining whether the mark is distinctive and well-known in the general population, would shift the focus away from the key question of “whether relevant consumers are likely to believe that the products or services offered by the parties are affiliated in some way”.... Although a trademark may be “strong and worthy of full protection” because it is valid and incontestable ... that does not necessarily mean that its strength is particularly relevant to the ultimate issue of whether confusion is likely to occur.”
3 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.