Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 F.2d 46 - Landstrom v. Thorpe

Landstrom v. Thorpe’s Empirical Analysis

189 F.2d 46 · 1951

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
3
states following
April 1993
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently April 1993 · most notably Big O Tire Dealers, Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio Corporation (1977), La Societe Anonyme des Parfums Le Galion v. Jean Patou, Inc. (1974)

37 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

21019511960197019801990decided

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. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1120 (§ 38 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (§ 39 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Hurn v. Oursler · Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. · Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and related claim under the ... trademark laws.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““George P. Nissen, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant named in the foregoing statement; that he believes the foregoing statement is true; that he believes himself to be the owner of the trademark sought to be registered; that no other person, firm, corporation, or association, to the best of his knowledge and belief, has the right to use said trade-mark in the United States, either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as might be calculated to deceive * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We think that § 1120 means that any person who procures registration of a trade-mark by a false declaration is liable in a civil action in the federal court to any person injured by the trade-mark ‘for any damages sustained in consequence thereof’, that is, resulting from the use of the ‘mark’ while falsely registered, and not an injury resulting from the false declaration solely.””
    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.