In re DC Comics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
689 F.2d 1042 · 1982
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2003 · most notably Duraco Products, Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enterprises, Ltd. (1994), Aj Canfield Company v. Honickman (1986)
14 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1091 (§ 23 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Costello v. United States · Truck Equipment Service Co. v. Fruehauf Corp. · In re Deister Concentrator Co. · Pagliero v. Wallace China 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reason the public is motivated to buy the product ... is of concern to market researchers but is legally immaterial to the issue of whether a particular designation is generic.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“There are different considerations where one seeks protection of a product design itself, and I have found no precedent in decisions of this court, or others, which recognizes the proteetability of any product design as a trademark for that product without proof of distinctiveness, that is, distinctiveness as an indication of origin, not simply that it is a distinctive design in the sense of being unusual. The semantics, in referring to a design as “distinctive,” impedes clarity in analysis_ Descriptive designations are not presumed to function as indications of origin immediately upon first use, unlike arbitrary word marks or arbitrary logo designs, but rather must be used from some period of time before acquiring the status of a trademark.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“to refuse registration on the ground that an applicant seeks to register the generic name of the goods, the PTO must show that the word or expression inherently has such meaning in ordinary language, or that the public uses it to identify goods of other producers as well.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.