Case Citator › AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats

AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
599 F.2d 341
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
149 of 149
Citing cases (total)
811
Treatment dates
2002–2025
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Limited: all 149 flagged citations for AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats have been read, with the 3 confirmed treatments listed below. The Ninth Circuit displaced traditional Sleekcraft analysis in two narrow settings: nominative use of a mark to identify the trademark owner's own product, and non-source-identifying use in an expressive work that must first pass the Rogers threshold.
More on how this was screened

The remaining opinions applied Sleekcraft positively or repeated history parentheticals reporting those limitations; nearby adverse language concerned other authorities, statutes, motions, or rulings.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

811 later cases cite AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats; 149 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Ninth Circuit limited traditional Sleekcraft analysis for titles of artistic works by adopting the Rogers threshold, which asks whether the mark has artistic relevance and whether its use explicitly misleads as to source or content.

    Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Rogers concluded that literary titles do not violate the Lanham Act “unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.” Id. at 999 (footnote omitted). We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis and adopt the Rogers standard as our own.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit limited Sleekcraft's traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis by holding that the nominative-fair-use test replaces it when a defendant uses the plaintiff's mark to identify the plaintiff's own product.

    Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions · Ninth Circuit · filed

    The nominative fair use test replaces the traditional AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979), analysis.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit confirmed after Jack Daniel's that Rogers remains a threshold screen before Sleekcraft when an expressive work uses a mark other than as a source identifier.

    Hara v. Netflix, Inc. · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Actual consumer confusion and intent are only relevant under the likelihood-of-confusion test. See Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 348–49. Before reaching the Sleekcraft factors, Vox must prevail on at least one of the prongs of the Rogers test.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace