Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Out in America’s Empirical Analysis
481 F.2d 445 · 1973
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Amstar Corporation v. Domino's Pizza Inc (1980), Exxon Corporation v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston Inc (1980)
29 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 1071 (§ 21 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Kahm v. United States · World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell's New World Carpets · B. H. Bunn Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Aaa Replacement Parts Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross · 216 F. Supp. 670 - Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Rogers Imports, 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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Dilution is a concept most applicable where a subsequent user uses the trademark of a prior user for a product so dissimilar from the product of the prior user that there is no likelihood of confusion of the products or sources, but where the use of the trademark by the subsequent user will lessen the uniqueness of the prior user’s mark with the possible future result that a strong mark may become a weak mark.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“format of the questions and the manner of conducting the survey”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The plaintiff] argues that confusing similarity of the marks is proved by the defendants’ intent to confuse the public and that the defendants’ intent to confuse the public is proved by the confusing similarity of the marks. The obvious flaw in the argument is that it requires the court to assume that which is to be proved.”
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.