Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders’s Empirical Analysis
331 U.S. 125 · 1947
Citation profile
248 federal appellate · 61 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 660 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. (1989), Societe Comptoir de L'industrie Cotonniere Etablissements Boussac v. Alexander's Department Stores, Inc. (1962)
248 federal appellate · 61 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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
reviewedChampion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co. · Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · William Warner Co v. Eli Lilly & Co · Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp.
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 660 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... ‘A trademark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner’s good will against the sale of another’s product as his... When 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. It is not taboo.’”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'where an injunction will satisfy the equities of the case' and where 'there has been no showing of fraud or palming off.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“so long as the manufacturer is not identified with the inferior qualities of the product resulting from wear and tear or the reconditioning by the dealer.”
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.