Blue Bell, Inc. v. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.2d 433 · 1974
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc. (1979), Elby's Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc. v. Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. (1982)
22 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1120 (§ 38 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 116 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Hall v. Cole · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where an absolutely false registration was fraudulently obtained solely for the purpose of instituting completely vexatious litigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is true that a number of decisions have held that a minimal amount of interstate commerce--either a sale or transportation--will suffice. But while these decisions accept minimal use primarily intended to satisfy the trademark laws, none of them endorses sham transactions exclusively designed to do so. Rather we find a clear line of decisions holding that the use must be bona fide, with token transactions accepted only where there is an accompanying intent to engage in continuing commercial use in the future”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“For purposes of this Act a mark shall be deemed to be used in commerce ... (b) on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in this and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection therewith.”
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.