Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 F.3d 902 - Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization

Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization’s Empirical Analysis

59 F.3d 902 · 1995

Citation profile

111
cited by 111 later decisions
2
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. (1999), Eashai Citibank Na v. I Eashai

43 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions

4301995200020102020decided

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. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union · Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. · American Steel Foundries v. Robertson · Amf Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats E

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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a]ttestations from persons in close association and intimate contact with[the senior user] do not reflect the views of the purchasing public,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “provides the legal authority to issue an injunction.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “California Cooler's mark is a composite term, and its validity is not judged by an examination of its parts. Rather, the validity of a trademark is to be determined by viewing the trademark as a whole. . . . Thus, the composite may become a distinguishing mark even though its components individually cannot.”
    2 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.