Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2018
1 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. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. · Centaur Communications, Ltd. v. A/S/M Communications, Inc. · Citibank Na v. Citytrust · LeSportsac, Inc. v. K Mart Corp. · Stormy Clime Ltd. v. Progroup, 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Preliminary injunctions are generally granted under the theory that there is an urgent need for speedy action to protect the plaintiffs’ rights. Delay in seeking enforcement of those rights, however, tends to indicated at least a reduced need for such drastic, speedy action____ Significant delay in applying for injunctive relief in a trademark case tends to neutralize any presumption that infringement alone will cause irreparable harm pending trial, and such delay alone may justify denial of a preliminary injunction for trademark infringement.”
1 later decision 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.