In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
476 F.2d 1357 · 1973
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 249 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co. (1987), James Burrough Limited and Kobrand Corporation v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., and Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated (1976)
75 federal appellate · 7 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Kahm v. United States · Application of Beatrice Foods Co. Application of Fairway Foods, Inc · Coca-Cola Co. v. Snow Crest Beverages, Inc. · Application of National Distillers and Chemical Corporation, Doing Business as National Distillers Products Co · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Tailored Clothes, 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 249 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing; (5) the fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use); (6) the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods; (7) the nature and extent of any actual confusion; (8) the length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion; (9) the variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark,”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant— (a) use in commerce any reproduction ... or colorable imitation of a registered mark... with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive... shall be liable in a civil action....”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[c]onsists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the [USPTO], or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion , or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”
6 later decisions 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.