Rushmore v. Manhattan Screw & Stamping Works’s Empirical Analysis
163 F. 939 · 1908
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 1963 · most notably 216 F. Supp. 670 - Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Rogers Imports, Inc. (1963), West Point Manufacturing Co. v. Detroit Stamping Co. (1955)
12 federal appellate · 10 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 Hall Signal Co. v. General Ry. Signal Co. · Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Landers, Frary & Clark · Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. v. Alder · Marvel Co. v. Pearl · Hildreth v. Norton
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““One who manufactures and sells a well-known article of commerce, like an automobile search light, inclosed in a shell of graceful but unpatented design, may maintain a bill for an injunction, profits, and damages against a defendant who sells an automobile search light inclosed in a similar shell, although his name appears prominently thereon as maker, and he has never represented that his lamps were made by complainant, if it is shown that the similarity of the shells does, or is likely to, deceive purchasers.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The complainant has no design patent, and his ease must stand, if at all, as a case of unfair trading, in which the essential element is deception — the palming off of one’s goods as those of another. But how a purchaser could be deceived into buying an automobile lamp plainly marked with the name and trade-mark of the defendant in the belief that it was the complainant’s lamp is more than I can comprehend. The mere similarity in the shape of the lamps in my opinion is not sufficient to produce such a result.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are of the opinion, however, that to answer this question in favor of the complainant carries the doctrine of unfair competition to its utmost limit. If it be pushed much farther those engaged in trade will be encouraged to run to the courts with trivial complaints over the petty details of business and thus will grow up a judicial paternalism which in time may, become intolerable.””
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.