Durox Co. v. Duron Paint Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
320 F.2d 882 · 1963
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Amf Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats E (1979), Anheuser-Busch Incorporated v. L & L Wings Incorporated Anheuser-Busch Incorporated (1992)
11 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Anderson · Washington v. Summerfield · American Foods, Inc. v. Golden Flake, Inc. · Avon Shoe Co., Inc., and Haymaker Shoe Corp. v. David Crystal, Inc., Haymaker Sports, Inc., B. Altman & Co., Best & Co., Inc., and John Wanamaker · Miles Shoes, Inc. v. R. H. Macy & Co.
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 44 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 * * * shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided. 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1) (a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think the trial court was correct in taking into consideration the weak nature of the marks involved, the specific differences in the goods of the parties, the different marketing channels through which the respective goods moved, the difference in customers (whether the goods have common purchasers or not) and the type of persons who purchase the goods (whether sophisticated and knowledgeable).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he authority given by [Sec. 1119] to the courts over the respective rights of parties to trademark registrations is concurrent with the authority of the Patent office to conduct opposition and cancellation proceedings, and the remedies are not mutually exclusive.”
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.