In re Abcor Development Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
588 F.2d 811 · 1978
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece (1998), Vision Center v. Opticks, Inc. (1979)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. · William Warner Co v. Eli Lilly & Co · Estate of Beckwith v. Commissioner of Patents · Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of the context in which a mark is used on labels, packages, or in advertising material directed to the goods is probative of the reaction of prospective purchasers to the mark.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““24-2-1-3 Registerability “Sec. 3. A trade-mark by which the goods or services of any applicant for registration may be distinguished from the goods or services of others shall not be registered if it “(e) consists of a mark which, (1) when applied to the goods or services of the applicant, is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, or (2) when applied to the goods or services of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, or (3) is primarily merely a surname: Provided, however, That nothing in this section (e) shall prevent the registration of a mark used in this state by the applicant which has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods or services. The secretary of state may accept as evidence that the mark has become distinctive, as applied to the applicant’s goods or services, proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use thereof as a mark by the applicant in this state or elsewhere for the five (5) years next preceding the date of the filing of the application for registration; ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Generally speaking, if the mark imparts information directly, it is descriptive. If it stands for an idea which requires some operation of the imagination to connect it with the goods, it is suggestive.”
2 later decisions 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.