Chrysler Corp. v. Vanzant’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1115 (§ 33 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. · Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. · Tw Electrical Service Inc Nn v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Association
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We decline to so hold [that evidence of deliberate copying shifts the burden of proof on the issue of secondary meaning]. Competitors may intentionally copy product features for a variety of reasons. They may, for example, choose to copy wholly functional features that they perceive as lacking any secondary meaning because of those features’ intrinsic economic benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.