In re Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
132 F.2d 341 · 1942
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 81
Relies on Frankfort Distilleries, Inc. v. Kasko Distillers Products Corp. · In re Nisley Shoe Co. · J. B. Williams Co. v. Williams · Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * It is true that the mark at issue in its entirety embraces more than the name ‘Bob Burnham’ and that the courts have often stated the general rule that marks should not be dissected, but there is another well-settled rule which must be applied, viz., that in considering the registrability of a composite mark it is proper and necessary to determine its dominant feature. * *”
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.