Standard Paint Company v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company’s Empirical Analysis
220 U.S. 446 · 1911
Citation profile
185 federal appellate · 71 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 441 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange (1926), Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. (1938)
185 federal appellate · 71 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
reviewedTrinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. v. Standard Paint Co. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Menendez v. Holt · Henningsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Elgin National Watch Company v. Illinois Watch Case Company W · Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co. · United States v. Steffens
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 441 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It may consist in any symbol or in any form of words, but, as its office is to point out distinctively tlie origin or ownership of the article to which it is affixed, it follows that no sign or form of words can be appropriated as a valid trade-mark, which from the nature of the fact conveyed by its primary meaning, others may employ with equal truth, and with equal right, for the same purpose.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘•The essence of the wrong in unfair competition consists in the sale of the goods of one manufacturer or vendor for those of another, and if the defendant so conducts its business as not to palm off its goods as those of complainant, the action fails.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The case at bar is within the letter of the statute. The opposite parties to the suit are citizens of different states, and while this diversity of citizenship was not necessary to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction- of the case in so far as it involved the validity of the trade-mark, it was necessary to give the court jurisdiction of the issue of unfair competition.””
3 later decisions 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.