Pike v. Ruby Foo's Den, Inc., of Maryland’s Empirical Analysis
232 F.2d 683 · 1956
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Americana Inn, Inc. (1965), 376 F. Supp. 733 - National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1974)
18 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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
Relies on Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Bement Sons v. National Harrow Company · Kneeland v. American Loan & Trust Co. · Smith v. Pollin
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Federal cases are virtually •unanimous against a knowing junior user. See, for example, Food Fair Stores, Inc., v. Food Fair, Inc., 1 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 177 ; Stork Restaurant, Inc., v. Sahati, 9 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 348 ; White Tower System, Inc., v. White Castle System, 6 Cir., 1937, 90 F.2d 67 ; Buckspan v. Hudson’s Bay Co., 5 Cir., 1927, 22 F.2d 721 , certiorari denied, 1928, 276 U. S. 628 , 48 S.Ct. 321 ,- 72 L.Ed. 739 ; Sweet Sixteen Co. v. Sweet ‘16’ Shop, Inc., 8 Cir., 1926, 15 F.2d 920 . Although all of these cases involve at least minor contacts by the senior user with the locale in which the junior user is doing business, so that knowing junior use is not the sole factor present, at least one commentator has concluded that ‘the presence of notice is the determinative factor, usually sufficient in itself to bar the second user’s claim.’ Developments in the Law — Trade Marks and Unfair Competition, 68 Harv.L.Rev. 814, 858 (1955). The only Federal case we have found which seems to point in the opposite direction is Lerner Stores Corp. v. Lerner, 9 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 160 , but in that case the trade name was the personal name of the junior user and he went to considerable pains to distinguish his enterprise from that of the senior user.””
2 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.