Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
204 F.2d 32 · 1953
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 35 U.S.C. § 145
Relies on O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc. · Estate of Beckwith v. Commissioner of Patents · Thaddeus Davids Co. v. Davids Manufacturing Co. · Howard Co. v. Baldwin Co. · American Tobacco Co. v. Wix
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the Sears, Roebuck and Co. case relied upon by the examiner, it was held that the term `J. C. Higgins' was unregistrable because the addition of initials to the surname does not change the mark as a whole from being primarily merely a surname. It is my view that in the present case `S. Seidenberg' without the terminal portion `& Co's.' would be clearly unregistrable as a trade-mark because it is primarily merely a surname for the same reasons stated in the Sears, Roebuck and Co. decision, and I am further of the opinion that the addition of the expression `& Co's.' adds nothing distinctive in the applicant's mark since it has been the uniform practice to ignore such expressions on the theory that they do not serve to identify any particular company. The possessive form in which the expression `& Co's.' appears is considered of no significance in this regard any more than if the `S' had been appended to the surname `Seidenberg.'”
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.