Richmond Nervine Co. v. Richmond’s Empirical Analysis
159 U.S. 293 · 1895
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1967 · most notably Howe Scale Company of 1886 v. Wyckoff Seamans Benedict (1905), Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company v. Hall's Safe Company C H O (1908)
16 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
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 Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer · Kidd v. Johnson · Hoxie v. Chaney · Fish Bros. Wagon v. La Belle Wagon Works
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To All Whom It May Concern: “Be it known that the Cedarine Allen Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of New York, and located in the village of Clinton, county of Oneida, in said state, and. doing business in said village and elsewhere, has adopted for its use a trade-mark, of which the following is a full, clear, and exact description. “The trade-mark consists of the word ‘Cedarine.’ “This trade-mark has been continuously used by said corporation and those from whom it derived its title since January 1, 1887. “The class of merchandise to which this trade-mark is appropriated is cleaning and polishing preparations, and the particular description of goods comprised in said class upon which the said trade-mark is used is furniture polish. It is usually displayed on cans, kegs, bottles, and other receptacles for containing the goods, by placing thereon a printed label on which the described trade-mark is shown, although it may be stenciled or printed or otherwise affixed to any receptacle containing the goods, or it may be placed on tags attached to receptacles containing the goods. Cedarine Allen Co., “By Geo. H. Allen, Vice-Pres. “Declaration. “State of New York, County of Oneida'—ss.: “E. D. Hunter, being duly sworn, deposes and says that, she is the secretary and treasurer of the Cedarine Allen Company, the applicant named in the foregoing statement; that she believes the foregoing statement is true; that she believes said corporation is the ow”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The fact that such .trade-mark bears Dr. Richmond’s own name and portrait does not render it unassignable to another.””
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.