Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
538 F.2d 14 · 1976
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Stewart v. Abend (1990), Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd. (1979)
72 federal appellate · 9 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. § 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 O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Mazer v. Stein · Braunfeld v. Gibbons · Goldstein v. California · Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co.
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the broadcast of an edited version of the Monty Python program infringed the group's copyright in the script, [sublicensee] ABC may obtain no solace from the fact that editing was permitted in the agreements between [sublicensees and the sublicensor]. ... Since a grantor may not convey greater rights than it owns, [the sublicensor's] permission to allow [ABC] to edit appears to have been a nullity.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services ... uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading’ representation of fact, which— (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such an act.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“suggest[s] that the parties did not consider themselves joint authors of a single work”
4 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.