Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 860 F.3d 1151 - Elliott v. Google, Inc.

Elliott v. Google, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

860 F.3d 1151 · 2017

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
August 2021
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1064 (§ 14 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))

Relies on Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. · Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. · Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union · Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “is as the name for a particular type of good or service irrespective of its source. Elliott v. Google, Inc. , 860 F.3d 1151 , 1156 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Overtime, the holder of a valid trademark may become a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. San Diego Comic Convention, Non-Profit Corp. v. Dan Farr Prods.
  2. “protectable as arbitrary or fanciful marks because they were primarily understood as identifying the source of certain goods.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. San Diego Comic Convention, Non-Profit Corp. v. Dan Farr Prods.
  3. “primary significance of the registered mark to the relevant public”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. San Diego Comic Convention, Non-Profit Corp. v. Dan Farr Prods.

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.