Rathbone, Sard & Co. v. Champion Steed Range Co.’s Empirical Analysis
189 F. 26 · 1911
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 1994 · most notably Waterman Company v. Modern Pen Company No 54 Modern Pen Company (1914), Duraco Products, Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enterprises, Ltd. (1994)
16 federal appellate · 12 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
Relies on McLean v. Fleming · Howe Scale Company of 1886 v. Wyckoff Seamans Benedict · Lawrence Manuf'G Co v. Tennessee Manuf'G Co · Goodyear's Rubber Manuf'G Co v. Goodyear Rubber Co · Flagg Manufacturing Co. v. Holway
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is said that the elements of unfair competition are lacking because there is no attempt by defendant to palm off its goods as those of complainant, characteristic of the most familiar, if not the most typical, cases of unfair competition [citing Howe Case, supra]. But we cannot concede that the right to equitable relief is coniined to that class of cases. In the present case the fraud upon complainant’s rights is more direct and obvious. Regarding news matter as the mere material from which those two competing parties are endeavoring to make money, and treating it, therefore, as quasi property for the purposes of their business, because they are both selling it as such, defendant’s conduct differs from tlio ordinary case of unfair competition in trade principally in this that, instead of selling its own goods as those of complaina'iit, it substitutes misappropriation in the place of misrepresentation, and soils complainant’s goods as its own.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The essence of the wrong in unfair competition consists in the sale of the goods of one manufacturer or vendor for those of another. “The fact that an article of defendant’s manufacture is represented by unprincipled retailers as that of complainant does not render defendant liable for unfair competition, providing it did its legal duty in distinguishing its product from that of complainant. ' ■ “Where the deception of purchasers is not the natural result of the' imitation by defendant of goods made by complainant, and there is no intention to so deceive purchasers, a case of unfair competition is not made out.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The defendant is not responsible for the fact that tricky retailers represent its manufacture as that of complainant, knowing better, provided defendant has done its legal duty in distinguishing its own product from that of complainant.” Rathbone v. Champion Co., 189 Fed. 26 , 110 C. C. A. 596 , 37 L.R. A. (N. S.) 258 ; Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Houston Co., 241 Fed. 817 , 154 C. C. A. 519 .”
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.