Merrick v. Sharp & Dohme, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
185 F.2d 713 · 1950
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably James Burrough Limited and Kobrand Corporation v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc. And Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated (1978), 350 F. Supp. 1341 - Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Kasser Distillers Products Corp. (1972)
16 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co. · Baldwin Co. v. R. S. Howard Co. · John Morrell & Co. v. Doyle · E. C. Atkins & Co. v. Moore
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * " holding that * * * [a trademark infringement action] involves private litigation whereas * * * [a trademark opposition] is an administrative matter that is held in the interest of the public with the Patent Office as the public’s representative.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A notice of opposition, in proper form, should not be construed to be a charge of infringement or a threat to proceed to redress past infringements or to prevent future infringements. In the case at bar, the notice of opposition merely seeks to prevent the registration of the proposed mark. “The opposition proceeding before the Patent Office is of an administrative nature. It is held in the interest of the public with the Patent Office as the public’s representative. “In such a proceeding the person who files a notice of opposition does not become involved in private litigation with the applicant. The TradeMark Act allows an opposition only to one who believes he would be damaged by the registration. Such opposing party must allege and prove his interest in the matter of the registration. He must show facts from which the likelihood of injury may be inferred (Callman Unfair Competition and Trade-Marks, pp. 1707-9.) “Congress has confided the registration of trade-marks to the Patent Office of the United States. The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction over registration proceedings except that appellate jurisdiction given them by the Trade-Mark Act. * * -x- * -x- * “In our opinion the Notice of Opposition here involved did not constitute a charge of infringement. “There was therefore no justiciable controversy between the appellant and appellees. The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Congress has confided the registration of trade-marks to the Patent Office of the United States. The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction over registration proceedings except that appellate jurisdiction given them by the TradeMark Act.””
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.