American Express Co. v. CFK, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2011
2 federal appellate ·
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. § 1063 (§ 13 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))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Street v. Jc Bradford & Company · Toliver v. County of Sullivan
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used; (C) the duration and extent of the advertising and publicity of the mark; (D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used; (E) the channel of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used; (F) 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; (G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and (H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“American Express developed an advertising campaign which featured the slogan, `DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT US.' According to the Company, this slogan was intended to encourage the public to use their [products] while traveling on business and pleasure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) its mark is distinctive and famous; and (2) the defendant’s use of the same or a similar mark creates a likelihood of dilution through tarnishment or blurring.”
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.