Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (§ 7 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“), 561 F.Supp.2d 368, 378 (S.D.N.Y.2008). 77 . 15U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). 78 . Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 155 (2d Cir.2002). 79 . Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act governs claims for infringement of a registered trademark, prohibiting the use in commerce of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any 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.” 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1). 80 . Virgin Enters. Ltd. v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141 , 146 (2d Cir.2003) (citing Gruner + Jahr USA Publ’g v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir.1993)). Accord Starbucks Corp. v. Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97, 114 (2d Cir.2009); Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc. ("Vuitton II”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“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 ... 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. 77”
1 later decision 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.