708 F. Supp. 811 - Gougeon Bros., Inc. v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1065 (§ 15 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. § 1116 (§ 34 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Lois Sportswear Usa Inc Sa v. Levi Strauss & Company · Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby's Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc. · Frisch's Restaurant, Inc. v. Shoney's Inc. · Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Michigan Brick, Inc.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm could result to plaintiff if the prehminary injunction is not issued; (3) that issuing the preliminary injunction would not harm third parties; and (4) that the public interest would be served by issuance of the preliminary injunction.”
2 later decisions 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.