Telechron, Inc. v. Telicon Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
198 F.2d 903 · 1952
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 19 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. (1968), Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp. (2004)
25 federal appellate · 19 district · 5 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. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (§ 7 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · McLean v. Fleming · Singer Manuf'G Co v. June Manuf'G Co · Canal Company v. Clark · Estate of Beckwith v. Commissioner of Patents
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a type of case where a court properly requires the second comer to stay clearly away from the original mark,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The basic reason for refusing to allow the exclusive appropriation of descriptive words in trademarks is the danger of depleting the general vocabulary available to all for description and denomination of articles of commerce. It is unwise to risk the development of a situation in which those attempting to market their goods will find that they can not use apt normal words or phrases in depicting or characterizing articles because of language preemptions by others. So the legal protection of trademarks is restricted in manner calculated to keep such descriptive words free for all.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“adopt[ed a] ... trade name, arbitrary in character, ... has the right to insist that others in making up their arbitrary names should so certainly keep away from his customers as to raise no question.”
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.