Supreme Assembly v. J. H. Ray Jewelry Co.’s Empirical Analysis
676 F.2d 1079 · 1982
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Boston Athletic Association v. Sullivan (1989), Sicilia Di R. Biebow & Co. v. Cox (1984)
15 federal appellate ·
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. · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Delli Paoli v. United States · Texas v. Certain Named & Unnamed Undocumented Alien Children · Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as a design service mark, that: 29 ... to the best of her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation or association has the right to use said mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when applied to the goods of such other person to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. 30 (Emphasis added.) With knowledge of Dixiepig, Hard Rock claims, TPS and its predecessor knew that a court had determined that the Dixiepig Corporation had the right to use”
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 to enter into commerce, and any person 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 used, 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, or by any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when the use sought to be enjoined is likely to confuse purchasers with respect to ... [the products'] endorsement by the plaintiff, or its connection with the plaintiff.”
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.