Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
71 F.3d 996 · 1995
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 17 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 276 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. (2000), Tenenbaum v. Williams (1999)
60 federal appellate · 17 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1118 (§ 36 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 412 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 503 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 505 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. · Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. · Fogerty Fantasy Inc · Kuntz v. City of Dayton
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 276 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'selected, coordinated and arranged' the elements of his or her work.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hobbs v. John · Tanksley v. Daniels“likely to serve primarily as a designator of origin of the product.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“As we have subsequently cautioned, Folio Impressions featured “rather specialized facts” and provides no authority for the broad proposition that “in comparing designs for copyright infringement, we are required to dissect them into their separate components, and compare only those elements which are in themselves copyrightable.””
5 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.