Roto-Rooter Corp. v. O'Neal’s Empirical Analysis
513 F.2d 44 · 1975
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Amstar Corporation v. Domino's Pizza Inc (1980), Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc. (1976)
34 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on United States v. Citizens Utilities Co. · World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell's New World Carpets · American Foods, Inc. v. Golden Flake, Inc. · Continental Motors Corp. v. Continental Aviation Corp.
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“use[s] in commerce [a] reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“while very little proof of actual confusion would be necessary to prove the likelihood of confusion, an almost overwhelming amount of proof would be necessary to refute such proof.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this circuit likelihood of confusion is determined by evaluating a variety of factors including the type of trademark at issue; similarity of design; similarity of product; identity of retail outlets and purchasers; identity of advertising media utilized; defendant’s intent; and actual confusion.”
2 later decisions 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.