Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 460 · 1983
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 54 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. (1999), Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America (1990)
36 federal appellate · 54 district ·
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. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co. · Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp. · Scott Paper Company v. Scott's Liquid Gold Inc · Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd.
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of function; (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or that he is likely to expand into that market.”
66 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The law of trademark protects trademark owners in the exclusive use of their marks when use by another would be likely to cause confusion.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“difficult to distinguish in viewing the evidence.”
6 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.