Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corporation v. Concession Services Incorporated Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
955 F.2d 1143 · 1992
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc. (1994), Martin v. Consultants & Administrators, Inc. (1992)
18 federal appellate · 17 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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · William Warner Co v. Eli Lilly & Co · Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“requires 'a finding that the defendant and the infringer have an apparent or actual partnership, have authority to bind one another in transactions with third parties or exercise joint ownership or control over the infringing product.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e have treated trademark infringement as a species of tort and have turned to the common law to guide our inquiry into the appropriate boundaries of liability.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a manufacturer or distributor [1] intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or if it [2] continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, the manufacturer or distributor is contributorially responsible for any harm done as a result of the deceit.”)', with 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b) (“Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.”), and id. § 271(c) (”
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.