561 F. Supp. 2d 922 - Brainard v. Vassar’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Neitzke v. Williams · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant engaged in conduct which “passed off’ its organization or services as that of the plaintiff; (2) in engaging in such conduct, the defendant acted with an intent to deceive the public as to the source of services offered or authority of its organization; and (3) the public was actually confused or deceived as to the source of the services offered or authority of its organization.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he plaintiffs ha[d] identified no source in law for this implied duty, nor ha[d] they shown this duty to be an element in misappropriation claims that do not involve trade secrets. " Id. (emphasis added). In subsequently considering the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, Judge Trauger rejected the argument that the "breach of duty of trust”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]s used in the Lanham Act, the phrase 'origin of goods' is in our view incapable of connoting the person or entity that originated the ideas or communications that 'goods' embody or contain.”
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.