17 Wash. 2d 610 - Foss v. Culbertson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 14 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"First: The right to use a particular name as a trade name belongs to the one who first appropriates and uses it in connection with a particular business.” "Second: A person, whether individual or corporate, may not use any name, not even his or its own, which is the distinctive feature of a trade name already in use by another, if such use by the one person tends to confuse, in the public mind, the business of such person with that of the other.” "Third: The prior user may be entitled to relief regardless of actual fraud or intent to deceive on the part of a subsequent appropriator.” "Fourth: To acquire the right to use a particular name, it is not necessary that the name be used for any considerable length of time. It is enough to show that one was in the actual use of it before it was begun to be used by another.” "Fifth: A trade name may be abandoned or given up by the original appropriator, and, when it is so abandoned or given up, any other person has the right to seize upon it immediately, and make use of it, and thus acquire a right to it superior not only to the right of the original user, but of all the world.” "Sixth: A trade name, in order to be an infringement upon another, need not be exactly like it in form and sound. It is enough if the one so resembles another as to deceive or mislead persons of ordinary caution into the belief that they are dealing with the one concern when in fact they are dealing with the other.” "Seventh: The rule is no different when the”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 7 Wash. App. 424 - Tradewell Stores, Inc. v. T. B. & M., Inc. · 123 Wash. 2d 339 - Seattle Endeavors, Inc. v. Mastro

2. ““The basis of this type of action is unfair competition. It is evident that no inflexible rule or set of rules can be laid down as to just what conduct will constitute unfair competition. Whether or not there was unfair competition, is a question of fact, and this being so, each case is in a measure a law unto itself. Olympia Brewing Co. v. Northwest Brewing Co., 178 Wash. 533 , 35 P.2d 104 . “We have had before us many cases involving this general question. The factual situations presented have, as might be expected, differed in each cas'e. However, from these cases it is evident that we have recognized that there are certain well established rules to be considered in connection with this type of case. “In the late case of Seattle Street Railway & Municipal Employees Relief Ass’n v. Amalgamated Ass’n, etc., 3 Wash.2d 520 , 101 P.2d 338 , this court, after a very ex haustive study of our cases, announced that there were eight general rules which might be deduced. The opinion then proceeds to set out these different rules, citing our cases which sustain each one. In order that we may have these rules before us in considering this case, we again state the following rules as applicable to this type of case. “(1) The right to use a particular name as a trade name belongs to the one who first appropriates and uses it in connection with a particular business. This rule is basic, and is supported by all the cases cited in the above case. ****** “(6) A trade name, in order to be an i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boice v. Stevenson

3. “Seventh: The rule is no different when the name, or some part thereof, is a geographical name, or contains descriptive words which have acquired a secondary meaning.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 123 Wash. 2d 339 - Seattle Endeavors, Inc. v. Mastro