Ziebart International Corp. v. After Market Associates, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
802 F.2d 220 · 1986
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Packman v. Chicago Tribune Co. (2001), Meridian Mutual Insurance v. Meridian Insurance Group (1997)
10 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (§ 39 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on Schapansky v. Department of Transportation · James Burrough Limited and Kobrand Corporation v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., and Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated · Pignons Mecanique Precision v. Polaroid Corporation · Ford Motor Company v. United States · Reid 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the similarity of the marks; 2) the distinctiveness (or strength) of the marks in issue; 3) the similarity of the products; 4) the degree of care likely to be exercised by consumers; 5) the similarity of the channels of distribution; 6) the intent of the claimed infringer; and 7) the evidence of actual confusion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“These findings and conclusions, together with an order and a judgment for defendant, all dated August 1, 1984, were entered in the docket on August 7, 1984. It is from the judgment so entered (and not entered on the date stated in the notice of appeal [August 1] ) that this appeal is taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We believe that whether there is, or is not, likelihood of confusion is a finding of fact to be reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard, except that this court can determine just as well as the trial court the factor of similarity of the marks themselves.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.