Esquire, Inc. v. Esquire Slipper Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
243 F.2d 540 · 1957
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Pignons Mecanique Precision v. Polaroid Corporation (1981), Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Americana Inn, Inc. (1965)
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 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
Relies on Hecht Co. v. Bowles · Hurn v. Oursler · Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc. · Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Food Fair, 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“pluck a word with favorable connotations for his goods or services out of the general vocabulary and appropriate it to his exclusive use no matter how much effort and money he may expend in the attempt”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This statute might be read as requiring as a matter of law that in Massachusetts courts of equity in trade-mark infringement and unfair competition cases give the plaintiff injunctive relief no matter how weak the plaintiff's mark may be, against a defendant whose actions create any likelihood of dilution of whatever distinctive quality the plaintiff's mark may have. But so to read the statute would be to fly in the face of the general principle that courts are not to presume a legislative intention to rigidify the traditionally flexible equity practice of granting or withholding injunctive relief in the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 1944, 321 U.S. 321 , 330, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“For the reasons already stated we reject the plaintiff's contention that it is legally entitled to all the injunctive relief it asked for in its complaint. The scope of the relief of that nature to which it is entitled under either the Lanham Act or the Massachusetts statute is primarily a matter for the District Court with which we would only interfere were we convinced that the trial court's conclusion resulted from an error of law, or an abuse of discretion. We find neither here. * * *”
1 later decision 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.