In re Swift & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
223 F.2d 950 · 1955
Citation profile
1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd. (1977), In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1985)
1 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. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn · Campbell Soup Co. v. Armour & Co. · In re Burgess Battery Co. · Barbasol Co. v. Jacobs · In re Burgess Battery 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While in the cited case the striped design was merely ornamental dress which was devoid of trademark significance, it does not thereby follow that a trade-mark device only incidentally ornamental, and in a sense decorative of the label upon which it appears, is not entitled to registration. * * * The Burgess Battery case, supra, stands for the proposition that that which is only the attractive dress of an article, although it be distinctive in its appearance and sometimes recognized by purchasers as an indication of origin, does not have, as its primary function, an origin-authenticating purpose, and is hence not á tradé-mark entitled to federal registration under the statute. Since the line distinguishing between mere ornamentation and ornamentation which is merely an incidental quality of a trade-mark is not always clearly ascertainable, the application of legal principles to fit one situation or the other requires proper reflection upon the impression likely to govern the ordinary purchaser in the market place. For that reason, the merits of each case of the character here presented must be individually and accordingly adjudged.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Bourns · In re Bourns“The term “trade-mark” includes any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“an unmistakable, certain, and primary means of identification pointing distinctly to the commercial origin of such product,”
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.