Warner-Lambert Company v. Northside Development Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.3d 3 · 1996
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Genesee Brewing Company Inc v. Stroh Brewing Company (1997), Registercom Inc v. Verio Inc
12 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
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. · Carnegie v. United States · Waldman Publishing Corp. v. Landoll, Inc. · El Greco Leather Products Co. v. Shoe World, 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“its distribution constitutes trademark infringement”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he district court correctly found that Davidoff was likely to succeed on the merits in its contention that CVS’s sales of its products with the UPC removed constituted trademark infringement. We recognize that, as a general rule, the Lanham Act does not impose liability for “the sale of genuine goods bearing a true mark even though the sale is not authorized by the mark owner” because such a sale does not inherently cause confusion or dilution. However, we have held that goods are not genuine if they do not conform to the trademark holder’s quality control standards, or if they differ materially from the product authorized by the trademark holder for sale. Where the alleged infringer has interfered with the trademark holder’s ability to control quality, the trademark holder’s claim is not defeated because of failure to show that the goods sold were defective. That is because the interference with the trademark holder’s legitimate steps to control quality unreasonably subjects the trademark holder to the risk of injury to the reputation of its mark. “One of the most valuable and important protections afforded by the Lanham Act is the right to control the quality of the goods manufactured and sold under the holder’s trademark.” In attaching its mark to its goods over time, a holder assures consumers that the goods conform to the mark holder’s quality standards. Reputation for quality, whether good or bad, becomes associated with a mark in the minds of consumers. Many consume”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) it has established legitimate, substantial, and nonpretextual quality control procedures, (ii) it abides by these procedures, and (iii) the non-conforming sales will diminish the value of the mark.”
2 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.