Black Hills Jewelry Manufacturing Co. v. Gold Rush, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
633 F.2d 746 · 1980
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co. (1998), Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International Inc. (1984)
36 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 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 11 U.S.C. § 1125 · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. · Murray v. United States
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(A) showing of a likelihood of confusion of consumers will usually result in proving the requisite likelihood of damage to the plaintiff-competitor. Thus, the prime test of liability under § 43(a) is closely analogous to, if not identical with, the likelihood-of-confusion test of federal and common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition. Since § 43(a) was passed as a consumer protection statute, the courts are not reluctant to allow a commercial plaintiff to obtain an injunction even where the likelihood of pecuniary injury to the plaintiff may be slight. Thus, under § 43(a), Congressional policy appears to encourage commercial companies to act as the fabled "vicarious avenger” of consumer rights. An injunction, as opposed to money damages, is no windfall to the commercial plaintiff. An injunction protects both consumers and the commercial plaintiff from continuing acts of false advertising. The fact that § 43(a) was passed to protect consumers as well as competitors is illustrated by the rule that a likelihood of consumer confusion is sufficient for injunctive relief. An injunction protects the consumer from continued false advertising. Money damages, on the other hand, primarily aid only the competitor, and he is required to satisfy a higher standard of proof as to injury."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“had been manufactured in the Black Hills for over one hundred years. Thus an association with the geographical area was established. That appellants had in mind using this favorable association is apparent from their advertisements prominently displaying Mount Rushmore, as well as using historical folklore of the Black Hills in their advertising. In examining all the evidence, we cannot say the district court's finding that the phrase”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to describe jewelry not made in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Appellants' major contentions on appeal are that: (1) The district court incorrectly held appellants could be afforded relief based on the existence of a common law unregistered certification mark; (2) the district court was clearly erroneous in several factual findings especially in finding that the phrase”
1 later decision 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.