In re Ferrero’s Empirical Analysis
479 F.2d 1395 · 1973
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2018
2 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 Application of General Electric Company · Lever Bros. v. Producers Chemical Service
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The fact that one mark may bring another mark to mind does not in itself establish likelihood of confusion as to source. Compare Lever Brothers Co. v. Producers Chemical Service, 283 F.2d 879 , 48 CCPA 744 (1960). The very fact of calling to mind may indicate that the mind is distinguishing, rather than being confused by, two marks.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the green that has gone and the red that is to come, or vice versa; that does not mean that confusion is being caused. As we are conditioned, it means exactly the opposite. Application of Ferrero, 479 F.2d 1395, 1397 (C.C.P.A.1973). Indeed, even the recollection of Centrum’s trademark upon viewing defendant’s labels is not sufficient without confusion:”
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.