Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
426 F.3d 1001 · 2005
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Sensient Technologies Corp. v. SensoryEffects Flavor Co. (2010), Schwan's IP, LLC v. Kraft Pizza Co. (2006)
10 federal appellate · 17 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. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. · National Educational Support Systems, Inc. v. Autoskill, Inc. · TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. · In re Disbarment of Passman
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A generic mark refers to the common name or nature of an article, and is therefore not entitled to trademark protection. A term is descriptive if it conveys an ‘immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods,’ and is protectible [sic] only if shown to have acquired a secondary meaning. Suggestive marks, which require imagination, thought, and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods, and arbitrary or fanciful marks, are entitled to protection regardless of whether they have acquired secondary meaning.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the strength of the owner’s mark; (2) the similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringer’s mark; (3) the degree to which the products compete with each other; (4) the alleged infringer’s intent to ‘pass off its goods as those of the trademark owner; (5) incidents of actual confusion; and (6) the type of product, its cost, and conditions of purchase.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'the gravamen of a dilution complaint [under § 417.061 ] is that the [defendant's] continuing use of a mark similar to the plaintiff's mark will inexorably have an adverse effect upon the value of the plaintiff's mark, and that ... the plaintiff's mark will eventually be deprived of all distinctiveness.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.