Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 399 F.3d 754 - Tumblebus Inc. v. Cranmer

Tumblebus Inc. v. Cranmer’s Empirical Analysis

399 F.3d 754 · 2005

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
1
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp. (2007), Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc. (2009)

18 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

480200520102020decided

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. § 1065 (§ 15 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))

Relies on Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. · Doerr v. Doerr · CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood · Ansari v. Pahlavi · Bush v. Vera

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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of the injunction.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) strength of the senior mark; (2) relatedness of the goods or services; (3) similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) likely degree of purchaser care; (7) the intent of defendant in selecting the mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Although the word “tumble” does describe a subset of the activities which occur inside Tumblebus Inc.’s “bus,” the connection between “tumble” and “bus” is not so obvious that a consumer seeing TUMBLEBUS in isolation would know that the term refers to mobile-gymnastics instruction, and not, for instance, a mobile laundry service using tumble-dryers.”
    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.