green
Positive treatment
2.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Repp v. Lloyd Webber
See Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Bros., Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1204, 1213 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 697 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.1982); see also Modern Home Inst., Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indem.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kienzle v. Capital Cities/American Broadcasting Co.
See Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Brothers, Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1204, 1219 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 697 F.2d 301 (2nd Cir.1982) (section 43(a) of Lanham Act did not apply to claim that game company misappropriated a game idea which had been submitted to it).
cited
Cited "see"
Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer
See Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Bros., Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1204, 1213 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 697 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.1982). b.
cited
Cited "see"
Robert Maine Leon M. Schochet and J. William Holland, D/B/A Clermont Company v. Standard & Poor's Corporation
See Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Bros., Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1204, 1216 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 697 F.2d 301 (2nd Cir.1982); M.
cited
Cited "see"
Sterling National Bank & Trust Co. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.
Rinieri v. Scanlon, 254 F.Supp. 469, 474 (S.D.N.Y.1966); see Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Bros., Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1204, 1214 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd mem., 697 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.1982).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation
See Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Brothers, Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1204, 1213-14 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff’d, 697 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. Armstrong
See e.g., Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Bros., Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1204, 1219 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd 697 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.1982) (declaring that § 43(a) “is concerned with affirmative misrepresentations about the nature of goods a defendant has sold or offered or advertised for sale”); Kienzle v. Capital Cities/American Broadcasting Co., 774 F.Supp. 432, 438 (E.D.Mich.1991) (same); see also Alfred Dunhill, Ltd. v. Interstate Cigar Co., 499 F.2d 232, 237-38 (2d Cir.1974) (finding that defendant’s failure to disclose that tobacco was water damaged did not state a claim under the Lanham Act); …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ritz v. United States
See also, Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Brothers, Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1204, 1213 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 697 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Zissimos
v.
Zissimos
82-1008.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Sep 23, 1982.
697 F.2d 301
Published
U. S.
v.
Zissimos
82-1008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Second Circuit
9/23/82
1
S.D.N.Y.
AFFIRMED