Flexitized, Inc., and Flexitized Sales Corporation v. National Flexitized Corporation and Dubin-Haskell Lining Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
335 F.2d 774 · 1964
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc. (1979), Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd. (1979)
35 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. · Babcock v. Jackson · Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · International News Service v. Associated Press · Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the results of the skill, expenditures and labors of a competitor.' " Id. at 781 (citations omitted). Bristol claims that the district court's finding of bad faith, without more, entitles it to relief under this theory. 83 We disagree. In Flexitized, we were faced with one party that had appropriated the name of another. Relief was unavailable under the Lanham Act because the name "Flexitized”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““the terms comprising it, as understood in their normal and natural sense by those to whom the marked product is sought to be marketed, are merely descriptive of the product [or service], or its ingredients, qualities or characteristics. ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The extension resulted in the granting of relief in cases where there was no fraud on the public, but only a misappropriation for the commercial advantage of one person of a benefit or “property right” belonging to another.’ Particularly where the defendant’s conduct has involved a clear attempt to profit at the expense of the plaintiff . . . or a breach of confidence by the defendant . New York courts have deemed the conduct to be unfair despite the fact that the plaintiff’s mark has not acquired a secondary meaning.””
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.