WSM, Inc. v. Hilton’s Empirical Analysis
724 F.2d 1320 · 1984
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 21 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably General Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Co. (1987), Co-Rect Products, Inc. v. Marvy! Advertising Photography, Inc. (1985)
30 federal appellate · 21 district · 7 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. § 1057 (§ 7 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1064 (§ 14 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. § 1115 (§ 33 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on United States v. Oregon State Medical Society · Lewis v. United States · Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette · Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[l]ikelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark . . . notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion as to the source of goods or services.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the continuing use of a mark similar to the plaintiff’s will inexorably have an adverse effect upon the value of the plaintiff’s mark, and that, if he is powerless to prevent such use, the plaintiff’s mark will eventually be deprived of all distinctiveness.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who shall affix, apply, or annex, or use in connection with any goods or services, or any container or containers for goods, a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending falsely to describe or represent the same, and shall cause such goods or services to enter into commerce ... shall be liable to a civil action by ... any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation.”
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.