Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 692 F.2d 1048 - Hindu Incense v. Meadows

Hindu Incense v. Meadows’s Empirical Analysis

692 F.2d 1048 · 1982

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
June 2010
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Industries (1984), Johnson v. Jones (1998)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

2501982199020002010decided

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. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))

Relies on In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Lee v. Texas · Stoner v. California · McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc. · Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “malicious, fraudulent, willful, or deliberate.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “exceptional cases may award attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[Plaintiff] admitted that there has been no loss of sales due to the infringement. Such a finding generally makes the case unexceptional for purposes of awarding fees under § 1117.”
    1 later decision 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.