Steele v. Bulova Watch Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
244 federal appellate · 59 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 762 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Lauritzen v. Larsen (1953), Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation (1962)
244 federal appellate · 59 district · 35 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBulova Watch Co. v. Steele (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1116 (§ 34 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1118 (§ 36 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1120 (§ 38 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (§ 39 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co. · Ford v. United States · United States v. Aluminum Co. of America · American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company
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 762 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in exercising its equity powers may command persons properly before it to cease to perform acts outside its territorial jurisdiction”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * The statute's expressed intent is `to regulate commerce within the control of Congress by making actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks in such commerce; to protect registered marks used in such commerce from interference by State, or territorial legislation; to protect persons engaged in such commerce against unfair competition; to prevent fraud and deception in such commerce by the use of reproductions, copies, counterfeits, or colorable imitations of registered marks; and to provide rights and remedies stipulated by treaties and conventions respecting trade-marks, trade names, and unfair competition entered into between the United States and foreign nations.' § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1127.”
8 later decisions 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.