Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 F.1d 210 - Schumacher v. Wogram

Schumacher v. Wogram’s Empirical Analysis

35 F. 210 · 1888

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
October 1910
most recently cited

Relationships

Relies on The Key City · Myers v. Callaghan · Schumacher v. Schwencke

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

  1. ““The facts show an attempted evasion by the plaintiffs of the provisions of section 3 of the act of Congress of June 18, 1874, ‘to amend the law relating to patents, trade-marks, and copyrights.’ That section declares in substance that no prints or labels designed to he used for any article of manufacture can be copyrighted, but authorizes them to be registered and protected as trade-marks in proper cases. If the experiment of the plaintiffs can succeed, this statute is inoperative whenever the prints or labels contain a pictorial illustration; and it could be wholly nullified by the device of printing pictures on the labels. The case of Schumacher v. Schwencke [O. C.] 20 Fed. 466 , is distinguishable from the present, because in that case the court found that the picture copyrighted was not made to be used for labels.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.