Moseley v. v. Secret Catalogue, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 48 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 452 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Savin Corp. v. Savin Group (2004), Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp. (2004)
104 federal appellate · 48 district · 16 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedV Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 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)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · Swift & Co. v. United States · Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. · Nabisco Inc Nabisco Brands Company v. Pf Brands Inc Pepperidge Farm 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 452 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“direct evidence of dilution such as consumer surveys will not be necessary if actual dilution can reliably be proved through circumstantial evidence — the obvious case is one where the junior and senior marks are identical.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“clause lies at the heart of this dispute. It provides: 23 The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. 24 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). 25 In Nissan Computer's view, the”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of — (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or (2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception.”
7 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.