758 F. Supp. 2d 570 - Specht v. Google Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 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. § 1125 (§ 43 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. § 2201
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Allowing a mark owner to preserve trademark rights by posting the mark on a functional yet almost purposeless website, at such nominal expense, is the type of token and residual use of a mark that the Lanham Act does not consider a bona fide use in commerce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the use of a website address containing a trademark is not the same as use of the mark,”
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.