DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bloom’s Empirical Analysis
315 F.3d 932 · 2003
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Sensient Technologies Corp. v. SensoryEffects Flavor Co. (2010), Buetow v. A.L.S. Enterprises, Inc. (2011)
4 federal appellate · 11 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
Relies on Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. · CMC Heartland Partners v. Union Pacific Railroad · Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen · Sims v. Gardner · City of Boerne v. Flores
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) 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 misrepresentation of fact, which— (A) 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, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, 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 majority“provides that `[t]he owner of a famous mark shall be entitled ... to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use ... causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he primary flaw in [plaintiff's] argument is that it never identifies any good or service that [defendant] sold under false pretenses. As such, [plaintiff] cannot prevail on a passing off claim, even if asserted.”
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.