Spangler Candy Co. v. Crystal Pure Candy Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. ““Thus, the Supreme Court has indicated in Sears and Compco that a state still retains power, by statutory or decisional law, to protect the consumer from confusion resulting from the copier’s palming off its product as the original. “Undoubtedly, different courts will have different ideas as to just what area is left for the states to protect their citizens from predatory business practices. Since Sears and Compco, the Second Circuit has considered a trademark infringement case where unfair competition was claimed. The Court applied the law of New York. The term ‘Flexitized’ was coined by plaintiffs for a flexible collar stay. The Court held that plaintiffs were the victims of unfair competition notwithstanding the fact that plaintiffs’ mark had not acquired a secondary meaning as to either source or quality. The Court said relief in New York had been granted in a wide variety of situations to insure that ‘one may not misappropriate the results of the skill, expenditures and labors of a competitor.’ The Court specifically noted ‘We do not read the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. * * * as establishing any constitutional bar to the application of state law in the instant case. * * * ’ Flexitized, Inc. et al. v. National Flexitized Corp. et al., 2 Cir., 335 F.2d 774 at 781 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Beconta, Inc. v. Larson Industries, Inc.

2. ““[Djoubtless a State may, in appropriate circumstances, require that goods, whether patented or unpatented, by labeled or that other precautionary steps be taken to prevent customers from being misled as to source, just as it may protect businesses in the use of their trademarks, labels, or distinctive dress in the packaging of goods so as to prevent others, by imitating such markings, from misleading purchasers as to the source of the goods. But because of the federal patent laws a State may not, when the article is unpatented and uncopyrighted, prohibit the copying of the article itself or award damages for such copying.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 14 Ill. App. 3d 641 - Clairol, Inc. v. Andrea Dumon, Inc.

3. ““ * * * the chiseling tactics of predatory and unscrupulous business competitors such as deliberately copying the product, dress and packaging of a successful competitor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sterling Products Co. v. Crest Manufacturing Co.