Johnson & Johnson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
960 F.2d 294 · 1992
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 18 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Hickson Corporation v. Northern Crossarm Co Inc (2004), United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co. (1998)
36 federal appellate · 18 district ·
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. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Coca-Cola Company v. Tropicana Products Inc · Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co. · Resource Developers, Inc. v. Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. · U-Haul International, Inc. v. Jartran, Inc. · American Home Products Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is not for the judge to determine, based solely upon his or her own intuitive reaction, whether the advertisement is deceptive. Rather, as we have reiterated in the past, ‘[t]he question is such cases is — what does the person to whom the advertisement is' addressed find to be the message?’ ””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellant’s criticism of the District Court’s findings misconstrues the proper role of consumer survey evidence in the analysis of implied falsehood claims. Generally, before a court can determine the truth or falsity of an advertisement’s message, it must first determine what message was actually conveyed to the viewing audience.... In other words, in determining whether an advertisement is likely to mislead or confuse, the district court may consider these [circumstantial] factors after a plaintiff has estáblished that a not insubstantial number of consumers hold the false belief allegedly communicated in the ad. Absent such a threshold showing an implied falsehood claim must fail.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a plaintiff must show that either: 1) the challenged advertisement is literally false, or 2) while the advertisement is literally true it is nevertheless likely to mislead or confuse consumers.”
5 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.