William Warner Co v. Eli Lilly & Co’s Empirical Analysis
265 U.S. 526 · 1924
Citation profile
274 federal appellate · 72 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 667 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982), Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. (1938)
274 federal appellate · 72 district · 31 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedEli Lilly & Co. v. Wm. R. Warner & Co. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Elgin National Watch Company v. Illinois Watch Case Company W · Canal Company v. Clark · Howe Scale Company of 1886 v. Wyckoff Seamans Benedict · Standard Paint Company v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company
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 667 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“entitled to relief, is entitled to effective relief; and any doubt in respect of the extent thereof must be resolved in its favor as the innocent producer and against the [defendant], which has shown by its conduct that it is not to be trusted.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]ne who induces another to commit a fraud and furnishes the means of consummating it is equally guilty and liable for the injury,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The name “Coco-Quinine” is descriptive of the ingredients which enter into the preparation. The same is equally true of the name “Quin-Coco.” A name which is merely descriptive of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of an article of trade cannot be appropriated as a trademark and the exclusive use of it afforded legal protection. The use of a similar name by another to truthfully describe his own product does not constitute a legal or moral wrong, even if its effect be to cause the public to mistake the origin or ownership of the product.”
4 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.