Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh’s Empirical Analysis
812 F.2d 1215 · 1987
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 181 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. (1999), Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America (1990)
52 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
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))
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Bullock v. United States · Stoner v. California · Amf Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats E · Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready 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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that there exist serious questions regarding the merits and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[If] the suggestion made by the mark [is] so remote and subtle that it is really not likely to be needed by competitive sellers to describe their goods [or services] ... this tends to indicate that the mark is merely suggestive, not descriptive. If, however, the message conveyed by the mark about the goods or services is so direct and clear that competing sellers would be likely to [need to] use the term in describing or advertising their goods [or services], then this indicates that the mark is descriptive.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“continuum in which the required showing of harm varies inversely with the required showing of meritoriousness.”
5 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.