green
Positive treatment
1.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Merlino v. Getty Petroleum Corp.
See Blackwell v. Power Test Corp., 540 F.Supp. 802, 807 (D.N.J.1981), aff 'd, 688 F.2d 818 (3d Cir.1982) (“Since it is undisputed that the ‘Power Test’ trademark is not owned or controlled by a refiner, it is evident that the [PMPA] is not applicable to this action.”); Power Test Petroleum Distribs., Inc. v. Zaltsman, No. 83 Civ. 0296, slip op.
discussed
Cited "see"
Abadjian v. Gulf Oil Corp.
See Lasko v. Consumers Petroleum of Connecticut, Inc., 547 F.Supp. 211, 219 (D.Conn.1981) (implying necessity of branding authority), and Blackwell v. Power Test Corp., 540 F.Supp. 802, 807 (D.N.J.1981) (SAME), aff'd. mem., 688 F.2d 818 (3d Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
T.A.M., Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp.
See Blackwell v. Power Test Corp., 540 F.Supp. 802 (D.C.N.J. 1981) aff’d, 688 F.2d 818 (3d Cir.1982) (“Power Test is the sixth largest seller in the relevant market with a 6% market share, unlike the defendant in Standard Oil Co. ...”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc. v. Ernst Enterprises, Inc., Richard H. Ernst and Eunice R. Ernst
Compare Lasko v. Consumers Petroleum of Connecticut, Inc., 547 F.Supp. 211, 219 (D.Conn.1981) (implying necessity of branding authority), and Blackwell v. Power Test Corp., 540 F.Supp. 802, 807 (D.N.J.1981) (same), aff’d mem., 688 F.2d 818 (3d Cir.1982), with Bsales v. Texaco, Inc., 516 F.Supp. 655, 661 (D.N.J.1981) (implying existence of “extraordinary situation” where branding authority not essential).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anyanwu
v.
Cistar Co
v.
Cistar Co
82-1180.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Aug 3, 1982.
688 F.2d 818
Published
Anyanwu
v.
Cistar Co.
82-1180
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit
8/3/82
1
E.D.Pa.
AFFIRMED