PLAYMAKERS, LLC v. ESPN, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1065 (§ 15 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1115 (§ 33 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Amf Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats E · Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. · Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Company · Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co. · Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith Corp.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an incontestable mark may be sufficiently strong for registration purposes, i.e. not generic, but may still be relatively weak for likelihood of confusion purposes.” Playmakers, 297 F.Supp.2d at 1281 . Moreover, though registration”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“agency services, namely, representing and advising professional athletes and aspiring professional athletes in contract negotiations with professional sports teams and in endorsements and appearances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hat is critical is the overall appearance of the mark as used in the marketplace, not a deconstructionist view of the different components of the marks.”
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.