Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““And provided further, that nothing herein shall prevent the registration of any mark used by the applicant or his predecessors, or by those from whom title to the mark is derived, in commerce with foreign nations or among the several states, or with Indian tribes, which was in actual and exclusive use as a trade-mark of the applicant or his predecessors from whom he derived title, for ten years next preceding” the passage of this act.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. Alfred H. Smith Co. · Rossmann v. Garnier

2. ““And if it is entitled to registration it is entitled to protection.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Coca-Cola Co. v. Nashville Syrup Co. · Hughes v. Alfred H. Smith Co.

3. ““If, then, the name has validity as a registered trade-mark it is by virtue of the provisions of section 5 of Trade-Mark Act Feb. 20, 1905), * * ” and the 10-year clause thereof upon which the complainant relies follows. * ■:= s The act makes a mark actually and exclusively used the requisite! period entitled to registration as a trade-mark. And if it is entitled to registration it is entitled to protection. We are unable to appreciale the distinction sought io be drawn by ihe defendant between the right to register a trade-mark and the right to protect it. * * * In our opinion, an interpretation of the act which renders the 10-year clause of no practical effect should he avoided, unless absolutely necessary. Undoubtedly public policy would prevent the registration as trade-marks of marks consisting of imin’oral or scandalous matter, or of flags or coats of arms. It may well be that the same principle would prevent tile registration of trade-marks simulating those used by others. But with respect to names, descriptive words, and geographical terms, we are of the opinion that the proviso prevents their registration if they ‘have been in use for less than 10 years, but that the 10-year clause entitles them to registration if they have been actually and exclusively used for more than that period before the passage of the act.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. Alfred H. Smith Co.