Gray v. Meijer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Lanham Act’s protection of registered trademarks also extends to unreg istered trade dress.... To recover for trade dress infringement under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that its trade dress has obtained “secondary meaning” in the marketplace; (2) that the trade dress of the two competing products is confusingly similar; and (3) that the appropriated features of the trade dress are primarily non-functional.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 99 F. App'x 677 - Market Masters, Inc. v. Clinician's Choice Dental Products, Inc.

2. “See Marketing Displays, 200 F.3d at 937 (setting forth the seven factor test for determining acquisition of secondary meaning). Gray argues principally that the court inappropriately focused on the acquisition of secondary meaning as opposed to the inherent distinctiveness of the product, emphasizing that the court had already found material questions of fact existed as to the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gray v. Meijer, Inc.

3. “[a] purchaser with even a minimal degree of care and sophistication would not reasonably believe that the Grays' popcorn product was placed alone amidst a sea of Meijer's private label products. The placement of the products minimizes the likelihood of confusion between the products. This factor favors Meijer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gray v. Meijer, Inc.