In re Mogen David Wine Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
372 F.2d 539 · 1967
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. (1984), Keebler Company v. Rovira Biscuit Corporation Keebler Company (1980)
15 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1064 (§ 14 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. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 35 U.S.C. § 171
Relies on Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. · Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. · In re Deister Concentrator Co. · In re Mogen David Wine 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“create[d] a commercial impression separate and apart from the word marks appearing thereon [that] serves, in and of itself, as an indication of origin.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.