Specht v. Google Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.3d 929 · 2014
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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. § 1119 (§ 37 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc. · Sands Taylor Wood Company v. Quaker Oats Company · Indianapolis Colts, Inc. v. Metropolitan Baltimore Football Club Ltd. Partnership · Keller v. United States
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he district court reasonably required more than memory, which is fallible; it required authentication by someone with personal knowledge of reliability of the archive service from which the screenshots were retrieved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n effort to sell the assets of a business is different from trading on the goodwill of a trademark to sell a business's goods or services and therefore does not constitute a use of the mark in commerce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once a mark is abandoned, it returns to the public domain and may be appropriated anew.”
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.