The Standard Oil Company, a Corporation and Sohio Petroleum Company, a Corporation v. Standard Oil Company, a Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
252 F.2d 65 · 1958
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc. (1976), Squirtco v. Seven-Up Co. (1980)
71 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · United States v. Oregon State Medical Society · Menendez v. Holt
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not necessary for similarity to go only to the eye or the ear for there to be infringement. The use of a designation which causes confusion because it conveys the same idea, or stimulates the same mental reaction, or has the same meaning is enjoined on the same basis as where the similarity goes to the eye or the ear. Confusion of origin of goods may be caused alone by confusing similarity in the meaning of the designations employed. The whole background of the case must be considered.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Many objections were made to the manner in which the surveys were taken. The principal contention, however, was that the surveys were hearsay and therefore inadmissible. The hearsay objection is unfounded. For the statements of the persons interviewed were not offered for the truthfulness of their assertions as to the composition of the beverage. They were not offered to prove that Bireley’s Orange Beverage is or is not orange juice. They were offered solely to show as a fact the reaction of ordinary householders and others of the public generally when shown a bottle of Bireley’s Orange Beverage. Only the credibility of those who took the statement was involved, and they were before the court. The technical adequacy of the surveys was a matter of the weight to be attached to them.” (Id., 974.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This court has announced the following controlling rule: “ ‘It is the generally accepted rule that a designation is confusingly similar to a trade-mark if an ordinary prospective purchaser, exercising due care in the circumstances, is likely to regard it as coming from the same source as the trade-marked article. * * * The question is usually one of fact * * * which in some cases may be determined by visual comparison, as where specific differences are so marked that the general appearance could not be confusing, * * * or where it is inconceivable that an ordinary purchaser examining the two labels would be deceived. * * * In other cases extrinsic evidence may be necessary.’ ” (Footnotes omitted.)”
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.