Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 F.1d 366 - Scriven v. North

Scriven v. North’s Empirical Analysis

134 F. 366 · 1904

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
April 1983
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1983 · most notably Standard Paint Company v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company (1911), Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co. (1922)

10 federal appellate · 7 district ·

90190419101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Singer Manuf'G Co v. June Manuf'G Co · Forgay v. Conrad · Canal Company v. Clark · Lawrence Manuf'G Co v. Tennessee Manuf'G Co · Coats v. Merrick Thread 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Courts cannot forbid .the use of words, which, standing alone and in their ordinary signification, are common property, or of numerals, which all the world is free to use, or of labels and stamps of common form, in which no one can claim an exclusive use, even though it may .be shown that careless persons may in some instances he misled: but if they are so collocated and stamped upon an article in manifest imitation of a form previously adopted by another as a means of distinguishing his goods, with the deceptive purpose to mislead, disguising one’s own goods thereby, and inducing the public to be- Hove that they are the good? of another, such conduct falls under the ban. The general principle that no man has a right to pass off his goods as and for the goods of another is broader than the rules applicable to strict trademark. In this country this principle is generally designated as ‘unfair competition in business.’ ””
    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.