Time, Inc. v. Viobin Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
128 F.2d 860 · 1942
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 1991
14 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 81
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · American Steel Foundries v. Robertson · Pecheur Lozenge Co. v. National Candy Co. · DeLong Hook & Eye Co. v. Hump Hairpin Manufacturing Co. · Nestor Johnson Manufacturing Co. v. Alfred Johnson Skate 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Some of the more important Illinois cases which announce the determinative rule as to unfair competition are: DeLong Hook & Eye Co. v. Hump Hairpin Mfg. Co., 297 Ill. 359 , 130 N.E. 765 ; [Nestor] Johnson Mfg. Co. v. Alfred Johnson Skate Co., 313 Ill. 106 , 144 N.E. 787 ; The Stevens-Davis Co. v. Mather & Co., 230 Ill. App. 45 , and Soft-Lite Lens Co., Inc., v. Ritholz, 301 Ill.App. 100 , 21 N.E.2d 835 . In the Stevens-Davis case is found a lengthy discussion and analysis of Illinois cases, as well as those of other jurisdictions, and a determination that the so-called ‘palming off’ doctrine is the rule in. Illinois. On page 65, of 230 Ill.App., the court said: ‘The courts in this State do not treat the “palming off” doctrine as merely the designation of a typical class of cases of unfair competition, but they announce it as the rule of law itself — the test by which it is determined whether a given state of facts constitutes unfair competition as a matter of law. * * * ’ “This rule was later approved in the Soft-Lite case, supra. “Plaintiff contends that the rule thus announced does not defeat its cause of action for the reason that defendant is ‘palming off’ its goods as those of the plaintiff by representing that the plaintiff is in some way identified with, and is sponsoring and approving, defendant’s product. We are satisfied, however, that the Illinois decisions do not permit an interpretation of the ‘palming off’ doctrine so as to include results so indirect and specu”
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.