Kidd v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 federal appellate · 22 district · 26 state decisions

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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As to the right of Pike to dispose of his trade-mark [which was his own name] in connection with the establishment where the liquor was manufactured, we do not think there can be any reasonable doubt. It is true, the primary object of a trade-mark is to indicate by its meaning or association the origin of the article to which it is affixed. As distinct property, separate from the article created by the original producer or manufacturer, it may not be the subject of sale. But when the trade-mark is affixed to the articles manufactured at a particular establishment, and acquires a special reputation in connection with the place of manufacture, and that establishment is transferred, either by contract or operation of law, to others, the right to the use of the trade-mark may be lawfully transferred with it.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer · Pepper v. Labrot

2. ““That transfer was plainly designed to confer whatever right Pite possessed. It, in terms, extends the use of the trade-mark to Mills, Johnson & Co., and their successors. Such use, to be of any value, must necessarily be exclusive. If others also could use it, the trade-mark would be of no service in- distinguishing the whisky of the manufacture in Cincinnati; and thus the company (the assignee of the business and the mark) would lose all benefit •arising from the reputation the whisky there manufactured had acquired in the market. The right to use the trade-marh is not Knvited to any place, city, •or state, and, therefore', must he deemed to extend, everywhere. Such is the uniform construction of licenses to use patented inventions. If the owner imposes no limitation of place or time, the right to use is deemed co-extensive with the whole country, and perpetual.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Allen & Wheeler Co.

3. ““The trade-mark no more became the partnership property from that fact [the user} than did the realty itself, which he also owned, upon which the business was conducted. Taking his clerks into partnership with him changed in no respect, by its terms, their relation to his individual property.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Greacen v. Bell