Maxim's Limited v. Badonsky’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 388 · 1985
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co. (1992), American Hospital Supply Corp. v. Hospital Products Ltd. (1986)
15 federal appellate ·
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. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Roland Machinery Company v. Dresser Industries Inc · Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc. · Pignons Mecanique Precision v. Polaroid Corporation · Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Sahati
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether there is an adequate remedy at law (that is, whether interim harm caused by the activity to be enjoined can be completely offset by a subsequent award of damages or other legal relief); (2) whether any such irreparable harm to the plaintiff caused by a failure to enjoin the activity outweighs irreparable harm to the defendant caused by an injunction; (3) whether the plaintiff has some likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) whether grant of the injunction would disserve the public interest.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because purchasers are unlikely to complain when dissatisfied, which would bring to light confusion; but rather they are likely simply to avoid all products produced by the company which they believe produced the product which caused the trouble.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n general, where `the cost of the defendant's trademarked product is high, the courts assume that purchasers are likely to be more discriminating than they might otherwise be.'”
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.