Sinko v. Snow-Craggs Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
105 F.2d 450 · 1939
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Duraco Products, Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enterprises, Ltd. (1994), Thomas Betts Corporation v. Panduit Corporation (1998)
29 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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
Relies on Hurn v. Oursler · Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. · Crescent Tool Co. v. Kilborn & Bishop Co. · Flagg Manufacturing Co. v. Holway · Emilie Saxlehner v. Edward Wagner
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The doctrine underlying unfair competition cases is to restrain deceitful and fraudulent- competition in whatever garb of misrepresented identity it assumes. * * * An analysis of unfair competition cases establish the proposition that Sinko’s right to monopolize, and consequently Cragg’s ‘right to imitate’ * * *, therefore depends on whether the particular trade dress in question has acquired a secondary meaning. “Nowhere has the doctrine of secondary meaning and its indispensability in unfair competition cases received more admirable treatment than in Crescent Tool Co. v. Kilborn & Bishop Co., 2 Cir., 247 F. 299, 300 , when Judge Learned Hand said: “ ‘The cases of so-called “non-functional” unfair competition * * * are only instances of the doctrine of “secondary” meaning. All of them presuppose that the appearance of the article * * * has become associated in the public mind with the first comer as manufacturer or source, and, if a second comer imitates the article exactly, that the public will believe his goods have come from the first, and will buy, in part, at least, because of that deception. Therefore it is apparent that it is an absolute condition to any relief whatever that the plaintiff in such cases show that the appearance of his wares has in fact come to mean that some particular person— the plaintiff may not be individually known — makes them, and that the public cares who does make them, and not merely for their appearance and structure,111 (Italics supplied)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [plaintiff] created a desire on the part of the public for one of two things, either for knobs made by [plaintiff], above all other knob makers, or for knobs made in a particular manner regardless of who made them. If it is the first situation, the law of unfair competition gives [plaintiff] the right to monopolize or to exclude other makers from copying the product. If it is the latter situation, [plaintiff] receives no such right to monopolize, even though he might have been the first one to make the article in the particularly desirable manner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In other words, equity will protect the honest, and restrain the dishonest, trader. The general rule in these cases has been admirably stated in Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Landers, 2 Cir., 131 F. 240, 241 , in this way: “ * * a court of equity will not allow a man to palm off his goods as those of another, whether his misrepresentations are made by word of mouth, or, more subtly, by simulating the collocation of details of appearance by which the consuming public has come to recognize the product of his competitor.’ That is to say, the doctrine underlying unfair competition cases is to restrain deceitful and fraudulent competition in whatever garb of misrepresented identity it, assumes.” 105 F.2d at page 452 .”
1 later decision 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.