Charles of the Ritz Group Ltd. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
832 F.2d 1317 · 1987
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc. (1992), Paddington Corporation v. Attiki Importers & Distributors Inc (1993)
19 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. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Hutto v. Finney · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n · Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette · Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp.
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) that it will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued and (b) either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although this factor alone is not dispositive, it bolsters a finding of consumer confusion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Fourth, Judge Motley concluded that SeaCo had adopted its marks and trade names in good faith. In fact, she concluded that it was Lee who had acted in bad faith, attempting to capitalize on SeaCo's use of the name. All these conclusions militate heavily against a finding of a likelihood of confusion to support a successful section 43(a) claim. Moreover, we believe that Judge Motley's factual findings would support an additional conclusion that the lack of any real proximity between the product lines at issue here would significantly reduce any consumer confusion. Judge Motley found that”
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.