Brittingham’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece (1998), Sara Lee Corporation v. Kayser-Roth Corporation (1996)
1 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. · McLean v. Fleming · Boston Firefighters Union, Local 718 v. Boston Chapter, NAACP
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) constructive notice of the registrant’s claim of ownership of the trademark; (2) prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, of the registrant’s ownership of the mark, and of his exclusive right to use the mark in commerce as specified in the certificate; (3) the possibility that, after five years, registration will become [incontestable] and constitute conclusive evidence of the registrant’s right to use the mark; (4) the right to request customs officials to bar the importation of goods bearing infringing trademarks; (5) the right to institute trademark actions in federal courts without regard to diversity of citizenship or the amount in controversy; and'(6) treble damage actions -against infringing trademarks and other remedies. •”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] court’s consideration of laches in the trademark context should encompass at least these questions: “(1) whether the owner of the mark knew of the infringing use; (2) whether the owner’s delay in challenging the infringement of the mark was inexcusable or unreasonable; and (3) whether the infringing user was unduly prejudiced by the owner’s delay.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“use of an appropriated mark without the permission of its owner... [that] is likely to result in or has resulted in confusion, mistake or deception on the part of the consumer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.