Premier Dental Products Co. v. Darby Dental Supply Co.’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.2d 850 · 1986
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Richardson-Vicks Inc (1990), Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techplosion, Inc. (2001)
25 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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. § 1060 (§ 10 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. § 1124 (§ 42 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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Menendez v. Holt · Kent v. Sanborn Cooperative Grain Co.
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]ollowing a proper assignment [of a trademark], the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the public believes that the exclusive distributor is responsible for the product, so that the trademark has come, by public understanding, to indicate that the goods bearing the trade-mark come from plaintiff although not made by it, or if the distributor has obtained a valuable reputation for [itself] and [its] wares by [its] care in selection of [its] precautions as to transit and storage, or because [its] local character is such that the article acquires a value by [its] testimony to its genuineness, that is proof that [it] possesses the goodwill associated with the product.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the public believes that the exclusive distributor is responsible for the product, so that the trademark has come, by public understanding, to indicate that the goods bearing the trade-mark come from plaintiff although not made , by it, or if the distributor has obtained a valuable reputation for himself and his wares by his care in selection of his precautions as to transit and storage, or because his local character is such that the article acquires a value by his testimony to its genuineness, that is proof that he possesses the goodwill associated with the product.”
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.