Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 628 F.2d 500 - Exxon Corporation v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston Inc

Exxon Corporation v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston Inc’s Empirical Analysis

628 F.2d 500 · 1980

Citation profile

234
cited by 234 later decisions
5
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

67 federal appellate · 23 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 234 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably John Harland Company v. Clarke Checks Inc (1983), Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc. (1982)

67 federal appellate · 23 district · 5 state decisions

103019801990200020102020decided

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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Swift & Co. · United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. · Amstar Corporation v. Domino's Pizza 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 234 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The greater the similarity between the products and services, the greater the likelihood of confusion.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “use[s] in commerce [a] 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.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the type of trademark, the similarity of design, the similarity of the product, the identity of retail outlets and purchasers, the similarity of advertising media used, defendant's intent, and actual confusion.”
    5 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.