S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.2d 176 · 1949
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2008 · most notably Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. (1952), Standard Oil Co of California v. United States (1976)
64 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 10 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 11 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 12 (§ 1 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · United States v. Swift & Co. · Klapprott v. United States · Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · Johnson v. Stevenson
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers as to the source of origin of such goods or services * * 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““That act did indeed put federal trade-mark law upon a new footing. The Act of 1905 had made the registration of a trade-mark only prima facie evidence of ownership, and the question must be regarded as never finally settled whether it created a substantive federal trademark law, as distinct from the common-law of the states, or whether it merely gave jurisdiction to the district courts and certain procedural advantages to the owner. The Lanham Act put an end to any doubts upon that score, and to the confused condition in which those doubts involved the whole subject, especially after Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins [ 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 ].””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“unnecessary and undesirable clog on the proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.