Lawrence Manuf'G Co v. Tennessee Manuf'G Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

112 federal appellate · 31 district · 60 state decisions

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 308 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Nothing is belter settled than that an exclusive right to the use of words letters, or symbols, to indicate merely the quality of the goods to which they are affixed, cannot be acquired. And while. If the primary object of the mark he io indicate origin or ownership, the mere fact that, the article has obtained such a wide sale that it has also become indicative of quality is not of itself sufficient to debar The ovwier from protection, and make it the common properly of the Irado (Burton v. Stratton [C. C.] 12 Fed. 696 ), yet if the device or symbol was not adopted for the purpose of indicating origin, manufacture, or ownership, but was placed upon the article to denote class, grade, style, or quality, it cannot he upheld ns technically a trade-mark.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Thomas Mfg. Co. · American Washboard Co. v. Saginaw Mfg. Co.

2. ““Undoubtedly an unfair and fraudulent competition against the business of plaintiff, conducted with the intent on the part of the defendant to avail itself of the reputation of the plaintiff to palm off its goods as plaintiff’s, would, in a proper case, constitute ground for relief.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co. · American Wine Co. v. Kohlman

3. ““No one can claim protection for the exclusive use of a trade-mark or trade-name which would practically give him a monopoly in the sale of any goods other than those produced or made by himself. If he could, the public would be injured rather than protected; for competition would be destroyed. 'Nor can a generic name, or a name merely descriptive of an article of trade, of its qualities, ingredients, or characteristics, be employed as a trade-mark and the exclusive use of it be entitled to legal protection. As we said in the well-considered case of the Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. v. Spear, 2 Sandf. [N. Y.] 599: ‘The owner of an original trade-mark has an undoubted right to be protected in the exclusive use of all the marks, forms, or symbols that were appropriated as designating the true origin or ownership of the article or fabric to which they are affixed; but. he has no right to the exclusive use of any words, letters, figures, or symbols which have no relation to the origin or ownership of the goods, but are only meant to indicate their names or quality. He has no right to appropriate a sign or a symbol which, from the nature of the fact it is used to signify, others may employ with equal, truth, and therefore have an equal right to employ for the same purpose.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Deering Harvester Co. v. Whitman & Barnes Mfg. Co. · Lawrence v. P. E. Sharpless Co.