Gray v. Armand Co.’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.2d 878 · 1928
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 1986
11 federal appellate ·
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 Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn · Battle Creek Sanitarium Co. v. Fuller · United States v. Braun
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The sole question, therefore, is whether or not this constitutes a legal trademark use. It is settled law that the office of a trade-mark is to distinctly point out the origin or ownership of the article to which the mark is attached. It follows, therefore, that, to establish a right to the registration of a trade-mark, two things are necessary : That it must have been actually applied to vendible goods, and that the goods have been sold in interstate commerce. As this court said in Battle Creek Sanitarium Co. v. Fuller, 30 App.D.C. 411 : ‘To constitute a trademark use, the mark must be attached or applied to the goods. Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460, 464 , 14 S.Ct. 151 , 37 L.Ed. 1144, 1146 . Property in it can only be acquired by the actual application of it to goods of a certain class, so that it serves to indicate the origin of the goods — that is to say, identify them with the particular manufacturer or trader — and to distinguish them from similar goods. United States v. Braun (D.C.) 39 F. 775 ; 28 Am. & Eng.Enc.Law, p. 346. The mere advertisement of the words or symbol, without application to the goods themselves, is insufficient to constitute a trade-mark.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The sole question, therefore, is whether or not this constitutes a legal trade-mark use. It is settled law that the office of a trade-mark is to distinctly point out the origin or ownership of the article to which the mark is attached. It follows, therefore, that, to establish a right to the registration of a trade-mark, two things are necessary: That it must have been actually applied to vendible goods, and that the goods have been sold in interstate commerce. As this court said in Battle Creek Sanitarium Co. v. Fuller, 30 App.D.C. 411 : ‘To constitute a trademark use, the mark must be attached or applied to the goods. Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460, 464 , 14 S.Ct. 151 , 37 L.Ed. 1144, 1146 . Property in it can only be acquired by the actual application of it to goods of a certain class, so that it serves to indicate the origin of the goods—that it to say, identify them with the particular manufacturer or trader—and to distinguish them from similar goods. United States v. Braun (D.C.), 39 F. 775 ; 28 Am. & Eng.Enc.Law, p. 346. The mere advertisement of the words or symbol, without application to the goods themselves, is insufficient to constitute a trade-mark.’”
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.