Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
676 F.3d 144 · 2012
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1115 (§ 33 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 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)) · 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Woodford v. Ngo · Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the strength or distinctiveness of the plaintiff's mark as actually used in the marketplace; (2) the similarity of the two marks to consumers; (3) the similarity of the goods or services that the marks identify; (4) the similarity of the facilities used by the markholders; (5) the similarity of advertising used by the markholders; (6) the defendant's intent; (7) actual confusion; (8) the quality of the defendant's product; and (9) the sophistication of the consuming public.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) that [it] owns a famous mark that is distinctive; (2) that [Radiance] has commenced using a mark in commerce that allegedly is diluting the famous mark; (3) that a similarity between [the dilu-tees] mark and the famous mark gives rise to an association between the marks; and (4) that the association is likely ... to harm the reputation of the famous mark.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) that it owns a valid mark; (2) that the defendant used the mark 'in commerce' and without plaintiff's authorization; (3) that the defendant used the mark (or an imitation of it) 'in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising' of goods or services; and (4) that the defendant's use of the mark is likely to confuse consumers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.