Sabinsa Corp. v. Creative Compounds, LLC’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 district ·

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

1. “(1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of the consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors; and (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or expect a prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant’s market.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Maya Swimwear, Corp. v. Maya Swimwear, LLC · Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

2. “The following non-exhaustive considerations should guide a court’s determination of the standard of ordinary care for a particular product. Inexpensive goods require consumers to exercise less care in their selection than expensive ones. The more important the use of a product, the more care that must be exercised in its selection. In addition, the degree of caution used depends on the relevant buying class. That is, some buyer classes, for example, professional buyers will be held to a higher standard of care than others. Where the buyer class consists of both professional buyers and consumers, the standard of care to be exercised by the reasonably prudent purchaser will be equal to that of the least sophisticated consumer in the class.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 742 F. Supp. 2d 532 - Alliance Bank v. New Century Bank

3. “to determine whether, in light of the controlling legal principles, the facts and/or the failures in the District Court's analysis compel a result as a matter of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spartan Concrete Prods., LLC v. Argos USVI, Corp.