Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 F.2d 1579 - CBS Inc. v. Morrow

CBS Inc. v. Morrow’s Empirical Analysis

708 F.2d 1579 · 1983

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2018

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

701983199020002010decided

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))

Relies on SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp. · W. B. Roddenbery Co. v. Kalich · San Fernando Electric Mfg. Co. v. JFD Electronics Components Corp. · Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. Industrial Undergarment 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “but also on consideration of the goods named in the application and in opposer's registration and, in the absence of specific limitations in the application and registration, on consideration of the normal and usual channels of trade and methods of distribution.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[M]inor design features do not necessarily obviate likelihood of confusion arising from consideration of the marks in their entireties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “includ[ing] 'electronic components and circuit boards,' but ... not includ[ing] 'electronic terminals, keyboards, screens, printers, computers or programs or software for games or toys.'”
    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.