West Disinfecting Co. v. Onorato’s Empirical Analysis
242 F.2d 197 · 1957
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1972
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 B. R. Baker Co. v. Lebow Bros. · Brewster-Ideal Chocolate Co. v. Dairy Maid Confectionery Co. · Motlow v. Oldetyme Distillers, Inc.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“West is an applicant seeking registration. Valtex * * * is in the position of having, prima facie, superior rights by virtue of an earlier filing date than West, which rights must be overcome. Our view is that in this interference West must show that at the time when Valtex filed (assuming no earlier trademark rights to be established by Valtex) West was already in a position to register its mark, had it chosen to do so. Under Sec. 1 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 , West, to have been entitled to registration at that time, would have had to be able to state in its application “that the mark is in use [emphasis in original] in commerce.” In other words, a mark which is not in use can not be registered. * * * It is sufficient to meet the burden of proof if the junior party establishes that it was actually making trademark use of the mark at, or shortly prior to, the time when the senior party commenced to use it, as shown by the senior party’s established date. [Emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“West is an applicant seeking registration. Valtex * * * is in the position of having, prima facie, superior rights by virtue of an earlier filing date than West, which rights must be overcome. Our view is that in this interference West must show that at the time when Valteco filed (assuming no earlier trademark rights to he established by Yalteco) West was already in a position to register its mark, had it chosen to do so. Under Sec. 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946, West, to have been entitled to register at that time, would have had to he able to state in its application “that the mark is in use [emphasis in original] in commerce.” In other words, a mark which is not in use cannot be registered. * * * It is sufficient to meet the burden of proof if the junior party establishes that it was actually making trademark use of the mark at, or shortly prior to, the time when the senior party commenced to use it, as shown by the senior party’s established date. [Emphasis supplied.]”
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.