Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. (1999), Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen (1998)
16 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. · Steele v. Bulova Watch Co.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person’s commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (2) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used; (3) ' the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark; (4) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used; (5) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used; (6) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks’ owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought; (7) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and (8) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3,1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register. ■”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f [defendant] were allowed to use “intermatic.com”, Intermatic’s name and reputation would be at [defendant’s] mercy and could be associated with an unimaginable amount of messages on [defendant’s] web page____Attaching Intermatic’s name to a myriad of possible messages ... is something that the [Lanham] Act does not permit.”
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.