Willson v. Graphol Products Co.’s Empirical Analysis
188 F.2d 498 · 1951
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably Chandon Champagne Corp. v. San Marino Wine Corp. (1964), Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Columbian Art Works, Inc. (1989)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1064 (§ 14 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1069 (§ 19 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Waterman v. Mackenzie · Menendez v. Holt · Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The intent of the framers of the 1946 Trade-Mark Act in inserting section 19 authorizing the consideration of laches, as suggested by the hearings before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, Hear- ' ings before Committee on Patents, Subcommittee on Trade-Marks, on H. R. 102, H.R. 5461, and S. 895, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 153, 154 (1941), was that this section would eliminate the hardship following literal interpretation of section 13 of the 1905 Act. Under that Act cancellation petitioners guilty of gross laches were allowed to cancel subsequent registrations regardless of how much hardship resulted. Procter & Gamble Co. v. J. L. Prescott Co., supra. [Cited in footnote 1 of this opinion.] Section 19 of the 1946 Act makes available the defense of laches and thus frees the registrant to present an equitable defense which, in the eyes of the committee, he should have been free to present at all times. Thus this section creates no new defense but removes a statutory impediment to- consideration of an old defense which had always existed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is our opinion that appellants’ registration constituted constructive notice to appellee, and that appellee,-having stood idly by for some ten years during which time appellants innocently conducted and built up their business until it was larger than that of appellee, is now precluded by laches from obtaining cancellation of appellants’ trade-marks.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“which was registered January 27, 1925 and continuous use was stated to be since January 1922. Respondent was the owner of the marks”
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.