American Lava Corp. v. Multronics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
461 F.2d 836 · 1972
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2003
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. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1059 (§ 9 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1064 (§ 14 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1066 (§ 16 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn · Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co. · Model Brassiere Co. v. Bromley-Shepard Co.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned”— (a) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for two consecutive years shall be prima facie abandonment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.