Duro Co. v. Duro Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““Seeing, then, that by putting his individual business under the name ‘Rolls-Royce,’ and utilizing its trade reputation and earned good will, Wall could greatly benefit himself, the converse of the proposition follows: That this veiling of his business under the name ‘Rolls-Royce’ might, and indeed almost surely would, injure the real Rolls-Royce industries, and substantially detract from their good will and fair name. It is true those companies made automobiles and aeroplanes, and Wall sold radio tubes, and no one could think, when he bought a radio tube, he was buying an automobile or an aeroplane. But that is not the test and gist of this' case. Electricity is one of the vital elements in automobile and aeroplane construction, and, having built up a trade name and fame in two articles of whieh electrical appliances were all important factors, what would more naturally come to the mind of a man with a radio tube in his receiving set, on whieh was the name ‘Rolls-Royce’, with nothing else to indicate its origin, than for him to suppose that the Rolls-Royce Company had extended its high grade of electric product to the new, electric-using radio art as well. And if this Rolls-Royce radio tube proved unsatisfactory, it would sow in his mind at once an undermining and distrust of the excellence of' product whieh the words ‘Rolls-Royce’ had hitherto stood for.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Duro Co. v. Duro Co.