Hindu Incense v. Meadows’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1999
1 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. § 1121 (§ 39 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on Brunette MacHine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc. · O'Hare International Bank v. Hampton · 374 F. Supp. 886 - Honda Associates, Inc. v. Nozawa Trading, Inc. · Tefal, S.A. And Royal Chambord, Inc. v. Products International Company, a Partnership Also Known as Picam Products and as Prescott Adams & Nolan · Belanger v. Hopeman Bros.
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.