Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 455 F.2d 285 - Sutton Cosmetics (P. R.) Inc. v. Lander Co.

Sutton Cosmetics (P. R.) Inc. v. Lander Co.’s Empirical Analysis

455 F.2d 285 · 1972

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
November 2004
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2004 · most notably Warner Bros Inc Ag Dc v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc J (1983), Thompson Medical Co. v. Pfizer Inc. (1985)

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2001972198019902000decided

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 Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · First National Bank v. Dickinson

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

  1. “A preliminary injunction under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act will issue only on a showing of a clear likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, and [plaintiff] cannot be irreparably injured by [defendant’s] sales in markets in which [plaintiff] does not itself sell. Accordingly, we hold that the order must be modified to encompass only [those geographical] areas in which the district court finds that [plaintiff] was making sales at the time of the suit.”
    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.