Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
978 F.3d 1093 · 1992
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 16 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 192 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2022 · most notably 134 S. Ct. 1377 - Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014), Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)
76 federal appellate · 16 district · 11 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. § 1117 (§ 35 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)) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Nicholas v. United States · Kahn v. Grant · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel 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 192 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which- "(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or "(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, "shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] false endorsement claim based on the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s identity ... alleges the misuse of a trademark, i.e., a symbol or device such as a visual likeness, vocal imitation, or other uniquely distinguishing characteristic, which is likely to confuse consumers as to the plaintiffs sponsorship or approval of the product.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) and (2) false representations in advertising concerning the qualities of goods or services (”
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.