Marshak v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2019
4 federal appellate · 5 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. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1115 (§ 33 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n · Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. · Menendez v. Holt
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Moreover, the infringement was intentional. ‘That [defendants] persuaded [themselves they] had a legal right to pursue the course [they] did diminishes neither the fact of [their] violation of [Marshak’s] rights, nor the force of its impact upon the consumer. That a course is stubbornly pursued does not render it innocent. The very persistence in the infringing conduct over the prompt protest of [Marshak] not only emphasizes its willfulness, but continues the wrong, entitling [Marshak] to judicial redress.’ Marshak is thus entitled to a decree as sought by him enjoining defendants from continuing to perform under the name ‘The Drifters’ or any variant thereof. The decree shall include a prohibition against use of the mark ‘The Drifters’ on any billboard or other promotional material and a requirement that defendants surrender to plaintiff any promotional materials bearing the name “The Drifters.’ ” Marshak v. Green, 505 F.Supp at 1061 (citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Courts adhere to traditional common-law contract principles even in trademark cases as long as holding a party to his obligations is not inconsistent with the public policy of preventing confusion and deception as to the origin of goods or services.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he essence of what [plaintiff] acquired was the right to inform the public that [he] is in possession of the special experience and skill symbolized by the name of the original concern, and of the sole authority to market its services.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marshak v. Green
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.