Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 N.Y. 429 - Ball v. . Broadway Bazaar

Ball v. . Broadway Bazaar’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
February 1977
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1977 · most notably American Steel Foundries v. Robertson (1926), Fisher v. . Star Co. (1921)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions

11019091910192019301940195019601970decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedBall v. Bazaar

Relationships

Relies on Glen & Hall Manufacturing Co. v. Hall

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

  1. ““Although we agree with the learned Appellate Division in recognizing the technical distinction between trade-marks and trade-names, we think the same fundamental principles of law and .equity are applicable to both. ‘All such cases, whether of trade-mark or trade-name, or other unfair use of another’s reputation, are concerned with an injurious attack upon the good will of a rival business; customers are diverted from one trader to another, and orders intended for one find their way to the other.’ Sebastian on the Law of Trade-Marks, p. 17. Trade-marks and trade-names are in reality analogous to the good will of the business to which they appertain. The trade-mark represents it in the market, and the trade-name proclaims it to those who pass the shop. In either case such unfair conduct as is calculated to deceive the public into believing that the business of the wrongdoer is the business of him whose name, sign, or mark is simulated or appropriated constitutes the gist of the offense.””
    2 later decisions 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.