In re Wella A.G.’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 1549 · 1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2013
2 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. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1055 (§ 5 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (§ 7 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1058 (§ 8 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 19 U.S.C. § 1526 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel · Sims v. Gardner · Vivitar Corporation v. The United States, and 47th Street Photo, Inc., Intervenor · Morehouse Manufacturing Corp. v. J. Strickland & Co. · Othal L. Turner and On-The-Town, Inc., D/B/A Atlanta's Playboy Club v. H M H Publishing Company, 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(id., emphasis in original, footnote omitted), Judge Nies concluded: 18 As far as the PTO is concerned, in view of section 7, supra note 5, the PTO must accept the correctness of the existing title records for the WELLA registrations, which show that the WELLA marks are owned solely by Wella U.S. Wella A.G. is, therefore, not entitled to the registration it seeks until these title records reflect the ownership it now claims or the registrations are cancelled. Thus, a new rejection on the basis of sections 1 and 7 appears appropriate. 19 Id. at 1555. 20 B. On remand the Board, noting both our”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Wella A.G.“agree[d] with the majority that the section 2(d) rejection cannot stand and that the application must be remanded for further examination. The question of likelihood of confusion where goods of a foreign corporation and goods of a related U.S. corporation are sold under the same or a confusingly similar mark is not resolvable simply on the basis that the companies are separate entities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Wella A.G.“so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when applied to the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Wella A.G.
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.