Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 264 U.S. 359 - Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty

Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty’s Empirical Analysis

264 U.S. 359 · 1924

Citation profile

612
cited by 612 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

211 federal appellate · 68 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 612 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders (1947), Societe Comptoir de L'industrie Cotonniere Etablissements Boussac v. Alexander's Department Stores, Inc. (1962)

211 federal appellate · 68 district · 24 state decisions

135019241930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Lawton v. Steele · International News Service v. Associated Press · Elgin National Watch Company v. Illinois Watch Case Company W

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 612 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]hen the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth.”
    39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Prestonette, compounded by Prestonettes, Inc., N. Y., from ■— per cent. Coty’s (giving name of trade-mark) genuine face powder and-per cent. Prestonettes’ binder, wholly independent of Coty.” The court also ordered: “ * * * Every word of said statement to be in letters of the same size, color, type and general distinctiveness, and to be equally visible and prominent on the front of the bottle, package or the like, save that you, the said defendant, may make ‘Prestonette’ more prominent, if you so desire.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““question therefore is not how far the court would go in aid of a plaintiff who showed ground for suspecting the defendant of making a dishonest use of his opportunities, but is whether the plaintiff has the naked right alleged to prohibit the defendant from making even a collateral reference to the plaintiffs mark.” Id. at 367 , 44 S.Ct. at 351-352 .”
    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.