Goodyear's Rubber Manuf'G Co v. Goodyear Rubber Co’s Empirical Analysis
128 U.S. 598 · 1888
Citation profile
86 federal appellate · 44 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 269 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935), Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty (1924)
86 federal appellate · 44 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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 McLean v. Fleming · Canal Company v. Clark · Manufacturing Co. v. Trainer · Stearns v. Page
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 269 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Relief in such cases is granted only where the defendant * * * represents to the public that the goods sold by him are those manufactured or produced by the plaintiff, thus palming off his goods for those of a different manufacture.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“nor will the incorporation of a company in the name of an article of commerce, without other specification, create any exclusive right to the use of the name”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““(3) That to acquire the right to the exclusive use o£ a name, device, or symbol as a trade-mark it must appear that it was adopted for the purpose of identifying the origin or ownership of the article to which it is attached, or that such trade-mark must point distinctively, either by itself or by association, to the origin, manufacture, or ownership of the article on which it is stamped. It must be designed, as its primary object and purpose, to indicate the owner or producer of the commodity, and to distinguish it from like articles manufactured by others. (2) That if the device, mark, or symbol was adopted or placed upon the article for the purpose of identifying its class, grade, style, or quality, or for any purpose other than a reference to or indication of-its ownership, it cannot be sustained as a valid trade-mark. (3) That the exclusive right to the use of the mark or device claimed as a trade-mark Is founded on priority of appropriation; that is to say, the claimant of the trademark must have been the first to use or employ the same on like articles,of production. (4) Such trade-mark cannot consist of words in common use'as designating locality, section, or region of country.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lamont v. Leedy
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.