In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
837 F.2d 463 · 1988
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2018
3 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. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1053 (§ 3 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on In re Pneumatiques, Caoutchouc Manufacture et Plastiques Kleber-Colombes
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny doubts about likelihood of confusion ... must be resolved against applicant as the newcomer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]pplicant's 'general merchandise store services' would include the sale of furniture .... What else it sells is irrelevant; there is overlap.”
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.