Squirtco v. Seven-Up Co.’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.2d 1086 · 1980
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 49 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 229 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably United States v. Bloomfield (1994), Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. (1984)
85 federal appellate · 49 district · 7 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
Relies on Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Bullock v. United States · Delli Paoli v. United States · General Electric Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers · International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n
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 229 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A strong and distinctive trademark is entitled to greater protection than a weak or commonplace one.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1) the strength and distinctiveness of the established trade dress; 2) the similarity of the trade dress, based on examination of the products as a whole; 3) the competitive closeness of the products; 4) the alleged infringer’s intent to pass off its goods as those of another; 5) incidents of actual consumer confusion; and 6) whether the degree of care exercised by the purchaser can eliminate the likelihood of confusion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant— (a) use in commerce 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; or (b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided. Under subsection (b) of this section, the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such imitation is intended to be used to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”
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.