Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 720 F.2d 604 - E-Systems, Inc. v. Monitek, Inc.

E-Systems, Inc. v. Monitek, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

720 F.2d 604 · 1983

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
2
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. (1999), Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc. (2006)

19 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

1801983199020002010decided

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. § 1072 (§ 22 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))

Relies on Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Sahati · Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Company · Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss Jena · The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Gibraltar Financial Corporation of California, and Gibraltar Savings & Loan Association · 293 F. Supp. 892 - Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss, Jena

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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) strength and value of trademark rights asserted; (2) plaintiffs diligence in enforcing mark; (3) harm to senior user if relief denied; (4) good faith ignorance by junior user; (5) competition between senior and junior users; and (6) extent of harm suffered by junior user because of senior user’s delay.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “had defendant's encroachment been minimal, or its growth slow and steady, there would be no laches.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Laches can bar recovery in trademark or tradename actions where injunctive relief is sought.”
    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.