Golenpaul v. Rosett’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2011
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 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 Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co. · Tiffany Company v. Tiffany Productions, Inc. · Neva-Wet Corp. of America, Inc. v. Never Wet Processing Corp. · Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Mindlin
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rather strong statements appear in numerous cases to the effect that to constitute abandonment of a trade-mark or trade-name there must not only be nonuse but an intent to abandon (Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendel-son Co., 179 U.S. 19, 31 , 21 S.Ct. 7 , 45 L.Ed. 60 ; Baglin v. Cusenier Co., 221 U.S. 580, 597, 598 , 31 S.Ct. 669 , 55 L.Ed. 863 ; Beech-Nut Co. v. Lorillard Co., 273 U.S. 629, 632 , 47 S.Ct. 481 , 71 L.Ed. 810 , which are cited in Rockowitz C. & B. Corp’n v. Madame X Co., Inc., 248 N.Y. 272 , 162 N.E. 76 , and Neva-Wet Corp’n v. Never Wet Processing Corp’n, 277 N.Y. 163 , 13 N.E.2d 755 [ 36 USPQ 551 ]), and if those expressions are to be taken literally, abandonment never can be found in any case where abandonment is denied and the denial is supported by an oath as to the swearer’s state of mind which the trier of the facts is unwilling to say is false swearing. That result is plainly inconsistent with and wholly nullifies the well-settled principle that a trade-mark right is not a right in gross or at large, like a copyright or a patent, and exists only as appurtenant to an existing business in connection with which it is used (Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U.S. 403, 413, 414 , 36 S.Ct. 357 , 60 L.Ed. 713 ; United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97 , 39 S.Ct. 48 , 63 L.Ed. 141 ; which likewise are cited and quoted in Rockowitz C. & B. Corp’n v. Madam X Co., Inc., 248 N.Y. 272, 278, 279 , 162 N.E. 76 , and cited in Neva-Wet Corp’n v. Never ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.