Vibrant Sales, Inc. v. New Body Boutique, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
652 F.2d 299 · 1981
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2000 · most notably Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992), Lois Sportswear Usa Inc Sa v. Levi Strauss & Company (1986)
24 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Magna Oil Corp. v. Bateson · Costello v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd. · L'Aiglon Apparel, Inc. v. Lana Lobell, 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the features allegedly copied have acquired secondary meaning in the marketplace and are non-functional,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morex S.P.A. And Morex Usa, Inc., Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Design Institute America, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Frankart Distributors, Inc., Counterdefendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant · Morex Spa Usa v. Design Institute America Inc“one who uses a photograph of his competitor's unpatented and untrademarked product to advertise his own wares may be guilty of false representation if the product pictured is not identical to one he is prepared to deliver.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who shall affix, apply, or annex, or use in connection with any goods or services, or any container or containers for goods, a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending falsely to describe or represent the same, and shall cause such goods or services or to enter into commerce, and any persons who shall with knowledge of the falsity of such designation of origin or description or representation cause or procure the same to be transported or used in commerce or deliver the same to any carrier to be transported or sued, shall be liable to a civil action by any person doing business in the locality falsely indicated as that of origin or in the region in which said locality is situated, by any person who believes that he is or likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation.”
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.