Spang v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
205 F.2d 703 · 1953
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1979
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (§ 7 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 35 U.S.C. § 145
Relies on Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Singer Manuf'G Co v. June Manuf'G Co · Bayer Co. v. United Drug 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the application of this doctrine of secondary meaning requires that not merely `a subordinate meaning' but `the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public,' * * * `is not the product but the producer.'”
1 later decision 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.