AutoZone, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
373 F.3d 786 · 2004
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Savin Corp. v. Savin Group (2004), Audi AG v. D'Amato (2006)
18 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (§ 39 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Moseley v. v. Secret Catalogue, Inc. · Amstar Corporation v. Domino's Pizza Inc · Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby's Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc. · Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When analyzing similarity, courts should examine the pronunciation, appearance, and verbal translation of conflicting marks.” [Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc., 109 F.3d at 283 .] A side-by-side comparison of the litigated marks is not appropriate, although naturally the commonalities of the respective marks must be the point of emphasis. Instead, “courts must determine whether a given mark would confuse the public when viewed alone, in order to account for the possibility that sufficiently similar marks may confuse consumers who do not have both marks before them but who may have a general, vague, or even hazy, impression or recollection of the other party’s mark.” Id. (quotations omitted).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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 representation 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. ..”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hese factors imply no mathematical precision, but are simply a guide to help determine whether confusion is likely. They are also interrelated in effect. Each case presents its own complex set of circumstances and not all of these factors may be particularly helpful in any given case.... The ultimate question remains whether relevant consumers are likely to believe that the products or services offered by the parties are affiliated in some way.”
2 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.