Freedom Card, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
432 F.3d 463 · 2005
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enterprises, Inc. (2015), E.T. Browne Drug Co. v. Cococare Products, Inc. (2008)
7 federal appellate · 11 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
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc. · Universal Money Centers, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp. · A&h Sportswear, Inc Mainstream Swimsuits, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, Inc
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of the consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors; and (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or expect a prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant’s market.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n deciding whether similar marks create a likelihood of confusion, we have adopted a non-exhaustive test using 10 factors that have come to be known as the”
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.