Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 F.2d 331 - Bascom Launder Corp. v. Telecoin Corp.

Bascom Launder Corp. v. Telecoin Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

204 F.2d 331 · 1953

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., and the House of Seagram, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., McKesson and Robbins, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., Barton Distilling Company v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd. (1969), Nagler v. Admiral Corp. (1957)

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

250195319601970198019902000decided

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. § 1115 (§ 33 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1119 (§ 37 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))

Relies on International Salt Co. v. United States · Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States · United States v. Kissel · United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. · Federal Trade Commission v. Motion Picture Advertising Service 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The evidence so clearly shows that the mark was merely descriptive that the judge should have directed the cancellation of its registration.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Carley Gracie, an Individual Gracie Usa, a California Corporation, Plaintiffs-Counter v. Rorion Gracie Brajitsu, a California Corporation W.O.W. Promotions Semaphore Entertainment Group, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees · Carley Gracie v. Rorion Gracie
  2. “does not apply to a jury case after the trial has concluded, for it would involve a new hearing of the evidence by the jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Barry Escott and Others v. Barchris Construction Corporation, and Others, Defendants-Respondents, Georgehall, and Others, Intervenors-Appellants

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.