Beech-Nut, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co.’s Empirical Analysis
480 F.2d 801 · 1973
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2006 · most notably Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd. (1979), Thompson Medical Co. v. Pfizer Inc. (1985)
21 federal appellate · 6 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. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338
Relies on Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Houston Ice & Brewing Co. · Clairol Incorporated v. The Gillette Company · Federal-Mogul-Bower Bearings, Inc. v. Azoff · Sutton Cosmetics (P. R.) Inc. v. Lander 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Despite considerable doubt created by the language of the statute as to whether . . . [i]t covers mere trademark infringement and unfair competition, the many cases decided since its enactment leave no doubt that, as construed by the courts, the claims advanced here may properly be brought under [section 43(a)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[t]he award of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and will not be granted except upon a clear showing of probable success and possible irreparable injury. Clairol, Inc. v. The Gillette Co., 389 F.2d 264, 265 (2d Cir. 1968).” 480 F.2d at 803 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[i]n testing for likelihood of confusion in the impulse-purchaser market, a court must disregard minutia of differences and look to the overall appearance of the package as seen by a potential purchaser, [citation omitted]” Id. at 804 .”
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.