Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co.’s Empirical Analysis
108 F. 821 · 1901
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1985 · most notably Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company v. Wolf Brothers & Company (1916), Howe Scale Company of 1886 v. Wyckoff Seamans Benedict (1905)
27 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 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 Menendez v. Holt · McLean v. Fleming · Singer Manuf'G Co v. June Manuf'G Co · Elgin National Watch Company v. Illinois Watch Case Company W · Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) The sale of the goods of one manufacturer or vendor as those of another is unfair competition, and constitutes a fraud which a court of equity, may lawfully prevent hy injunction. Manufacturing Co. v. Spear, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 599; Seixo v. Provezende, 1 Ch. App. 192, 194; Coats v. Thread Co., 149 U. S. 562 , 18 Sup. Ct. 966 , 37 L. Ed. 847 . “(2) Geographical terms and words descriptive of the character, quality, or places of manufacture or of sale of articles cannot be monopolized as trademarks. Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311 , 321, 20 L. Ed. 581 ; Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U. S. 464 , 14 Sup. Ct. 151 , 37 L. Ed. 1144 ; Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540 , 546, 11 Sup. Ct. 625 , 35 L. Ed. 247 ; Manufacturing Co. v. Trainer, 101 U. S. 51 , 56, 25 L. Ed. 993 ; Goodyear’s India-Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598 , 602, 9 Sup. Ct. 166 , 32 L. Ed. 535 ; Continental Ins. Co. v. Continental Fire Ass’n (C. C.) 96 Fed. 846 ; Brown Chemical Co. v. Frederick Stearns & Co. (C. C.) 37 Fed. 361 ; Chemical Works v. Muth (C. C.) 35 Fed. 524 , 1 L. R. A. 44 ; Illinois Watch-Case Co. v. Elgin Nat. Watch Co., 94 Fed. 667 , 35 C. C. A. 237 ; New York & R. Cement Co. v. Coplay Cement Co. (C. C.) 45 Fed. 212 ; Iron Co. v. Uhler, 75 Pa. 467 , 15 Am. Rep. 599 ; Connell v. Reed, 128 Mass. 477 , 35 Am. Rep. 397 . “(3) But the use of such'geographical or descriptive terms to palm off the goods of one manufacturer or vendor as those of another, and to carry on unfair comp”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Draper v. Skerrett · Buzby v. Davis““The manufacturer of particular goods is entitled to the reputation they have acquired, and the public is entitled to the means of distinguishing between those and other goods; and protection is accorded against unfair dealing, whether there be a technical trade-mark or not. The essence of the wrong consists in the sale of the goods of one manufacturer or vendor for those of another.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.