Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 F.3d 654 - Tools Usa and Equipment Company v. Champ Frame Straightening Equipment Incorporated

Tools Usa and Equipment Company v. Champ Frame Straightening Equipment Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis

87 F.3d 654 · 1996

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
April 2024
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. (2002), George & Co. v. Imagination Entertainment Ltd. (2009)

20 federal appellate · 6 district ·

1901996200020102020decided

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 Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. · Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Nicholas v. United States · Nebraska v. Wyoming

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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the only conclusion a reasonable trier of fact could draw from the evidence is in favor of the moving party.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing every legitimate inference in that party's favor,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the strength or distinctiveness of the plaintiffs trade dress; (2) the similarity between the trade dress of the parties’ produces]; (3) the similarity of [the] goods which the trade dress identified; (4) the similarity of [the] retail facilities and trade channels used to market the two lines of products; (5) the similarity in advertising used by the sellers of each line of product; (6) the defendant’s intent; and (7) customer reaction indicating actual confusion.”
    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.