Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 931 F.2d 1472 - Chanel, Inc. v. Italian Activewear of Florida, Inc.

Chanel, Inc. v. Italian Activewear of Florida, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

931 F.2d 1472 · 1991

Citation profile

184
cited by 184 later decisions
2
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 184 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property in Greene & Tuscaloosa Counties (1991), International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc. (1991)

27 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

7001991200020102020decided

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. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Morissette v. United States · Mart Corporation v. Cartier Inc 47th Street Photo Inc · Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc. · Rollins v. TechSouth, 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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “come[s] forward with significant, probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because of its very nature a corporation can act only through individuals. 'Obviously...if there was an infringement by the corporation, this infringement was caused by some one or more persons either officers or employees of the corporation who caused the acts to be done.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “But--particularly where, as here, the moving party is also the party with the burden of proof on the issue--it is important to remember the non-moving party must produce its significant, probative evidence only after the movant has satisfied its burden of demonstrating there is no genuine dispute of any material fact.”
    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.