Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Co.’s Empirical Analysis
294 F.2d 694 · 1961
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 166 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Scott Paper Company v. Scott's Liquid Gold Inc (1978), Sands Taylor Wood Company v. Quaker Oats Company (1992)
57 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 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 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. · Jefferson & Clearfield Coal & Iron Co. v. United States · James Sackley Company v. United States
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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that the design is a mark of distinction identifying the source of the article and that purchasers are moved to buy it because of its source.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Poly Pitcher' ... is an incongruous expression, and has the characteristics of a coined or fanciful mark”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * Of course, the mere fact that a person has utilized in combination a number of elements which severally were well known will not defeat the patentability of the combination. Graff, Washbourne & Dunn v. Webster, 2 Cir., 1912, 195 F. 522, 523 . But the utilization of old elements in combination must represent an exercise of inventive skill and creative talent beyond that of the ordinary designer chargeable with knowledge of the prior art. International Silver Co. v. Pomerantz, 2 Cir., 1959, 271 F.2d 69, 71 ; General Time Instruments Corp. v. United States Time Corp.,. 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 853, 854 , certiorari denied 1948, 334 U.S. 846 , 68 S.Ct. 1515 , 92 L.Ed. 1770 . What plaintiff did amounted to nothing more than an unstartling regrouping of old elements which demonstrated no. originality born of inventive faculty. This is not enough. Knickerbocker-Plastic Co. v. Allied Molding Corp., 2 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 652, 655 . It is not sufficient that plaintiff has shown the talent of an adapter; a manifestation of the art of the inventor was required. * * * ””
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.