515 F. Supp. 915 - Lambda Electronics Corp v. Lambda Technology, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd. (1987), Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. (2001)
4 federal appellate · 8 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. § 1058 (§ 8 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1059 (§ 9 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1065 (§ 15 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n · Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp. · Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. · McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first is that the senior user presently intends to expand his sales efforts to compete directly with the junior user; likelihood of confusion is created by the likelihood that the two products will be directly competitive. The second possibility is that, while there is no present intention to bridge the gap, consumers will assume otherwise and conclude, in this era of corporate diversification, that the parties are related companies.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the strength of the senior user’s mark; (2) the degree of similarity between the two marks; (3) the proximity of the products; (4) the likelihood that the senior user will bridge the gap; (5) actual confusion; (6) the junior user’s good faith; (7) the quality of the junior user’s product; and (8) the sophistication of the buyers.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Court’s analysis of ‘likelihood of confusion’ must be supplemented by a consideration of the ‘balance of the equities,’ which latter inquiry takes into account three interests: those of the senior user, those of the junior user, and those of the public consumer. Scarves by Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports, Ltd., 544 F.2d 1167, 1172 (2d Cir.1976); Information Clearing House, Inc. v. Find Magazine, 492 F.Supp. 147, 155 (S.D.N.Y.1980). The Court thus must first inquire whether the instant case presents any likelihood of confusion and, if it does, then proceed to strike the balance of equities. McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc., 599 F.2d 1126, 1139-40 (2d Cir.1979); see Goldberg & Borchard, Related Goods Trademark Cases in the Second Circuit, 70 Trademark Rep. 287 , 305-06 (1980).””
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.