J. R. Wood & Sons, Inc. v. Reese Jewelry Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
278 F.2d 157 · 1960
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons (1975), Harold F. Ritchie, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc. (1960)
19 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Bridges v. United States · Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc. · LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co. · Q-Tipps, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson · Miles Shoes, Inc. v. R. H. Macy & Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When middle-aged judges are obliged to determine the ‘likelihood of confusion’ in the purchase of engagement and wedding rings by youthful swains not enjoying our advantage of knowing the answer in advance, I should suppose the most resolute mind must entertain some doubts. I prefer to resolve mine in favor of a plaintiff who has spent money and effort in exploiting its mark for nearly a score of years rather than of a defendant who, with the world of possible names before him, has chosen to inch as close to the plaintiff’s mark as he believes he safely can, even if he has done this in a ‘good faith’ belief that he has succeeded.” 278 F.2d 157 at 160 . 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Trademarks containing a word in the public domain are said to be less `confusingly similar if they resemble each other only by the inclusion of a word which is in the public domain.' [Citing Goldring, Inc. v. Town-Moore, Inc., 228 F.2d 254 , 255, 43 CCPA 740, and other cases.] * * * To grant to appellee the protection sought would bestow upon it a virtual monopoly of any word commencing with `art.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The decision as to infringement must, of necessity, be based primarily upon a comparison of the marks. In the absence of other determinative evidence, a question of law or at best a mixed question of law and fact is presented as to which appellate review is not foreclosed.”
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.