Ilco Corp. v. Ideal Security Hardware Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
527 F.2d 1221 · 1976
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably 513 F. Supp. 1339 - Estate of Presley v. Russen (1981), Yamaha International Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co. (1988)
4 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. § 1071 (§ 21 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Salem Commodities, Inc. v. Miami Margarine Co. · Jim Dandy Co. v. Martha White Foods, Inc. · Elder Mfg. Co. v. International Shoe Co. · Hunt v. Treppschuh · Jim Dandy Co. ex rel. Western Grain Co. v. Martha White Foods, 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he law permits a user who changes the form of its mark to retain the benefit of its use of the earlier form, without abandonment, if the new and old forms create the same, continuing commercial impression.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is settled that a person may change the display of a mark at any time because whatever rights he may possess in the mark reside in the term itself rather than in any particular form or arrangement thereof.... The only requirement in these instances is that the mark be modified in such a fashion as to retain its trademark impact and symbolize a single and continuing commercial impression. That is, a change which does not alter its distinctive characteristics represents a continuity of trademark rights. Thus, where the distinctive character of the mark is not changed, the mark is, in effect, the same and the rights obtained by virtue of the earlier use of the prior form inure to the later form, [citations omitted]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.