Blue Ribbon Feed Company Inc v. Farmers Union Central Exchange Inc’s Empirical Analysis
731 F.2d 415 · 1984
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Deere & Company v. Mtd Products, Inc., Cross-Appellee (1994), Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Wag-Aero, Inc. (1984)
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie · 83 Wis. 2d 406 - Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc. · Baker Manufacturing Co. v. Whitewater Manufacturing Co. · Polaroid Corp. v. Polaraid, 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“without a privilege to do so, he uses on or in connection with his goods, services or business a designation which so resembles the other’s previously used mark or trade name as to be likely to (a) cause confusion, mistake or deception, or (b) cause prospective purchasers to believe that (i) the actor’s goods or services are those of the other, or (ii) the actor’s goods or services emanate from the same source as the other’s goods or services, or (iii) the actor’s goods or services are approved or sponsored by the other, or (iv) the actor’s business is the business of, or is in some manner associated or connected with, the other, even though the actor does not use the designation with a purpose to deceive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“considerations of comity among the states favor limited out-of-state application of exclusive rights acquired under domestic law, and a district court does not err when it takes a restrained approach to the extra-territorial application of such rights”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The determination whether the delay was so unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial to the [party asserting laches] as to bar the [non-asserting party's] remedies rested in the sound discretion of the trial judge.”
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.