Hanson v. Triangle Publications, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
163 F.2d 74 · 1947
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co. (1963), Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Sahati (1948)
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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 Hurn v. Oursler · Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. · Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson · L. E. Waterman Co. v. Gordon · Vogue Co. v. Thompson-Hudson 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Under present general law, the use of another’s mark or name, even in a noncompetitive field, where the object of the user is to trade on the other’s reputation and good will, or where that necessarily will be the result, may constitute unfair competition. See e.g. Yale Electric Corporation v. Robertson, 2 Cir., 26 F.2d 972, 974 ; Del Monte Special Food Co. v. California Packing Corporation, 9 Cir., 34 F.2d 774 ; Atlas Diesel Engine Corp. v. Atlas Diesel School, D.C., E.D.Mo., 60 F.Supp. 429 . This inherently would seem to imply— though the cases are not unanimous in their theory — such a reputation and good will in the circumstances as to make it likely that the public will be confused or deceived by the particular use.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as part of their tradename to take advantage of Seventeen fame, that the defendants attempted to foster the impression that their dresses were connected with the magazine, and further that persons in the fashion and apparel business had been confused by the similarity of names, were supported by evidence. Id. at 76-77. This court also noted as significant the fact that the plaintiff in that case had made its magazine serve”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“as a commercial blesser and oblique brander of merchandise for identifying the products of its advertisers in the market.”
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.