39 Wash. App. 734 - Bishop v. Hanenburg’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Eastern Outfitting Co. v. Manheim · Olympia Brewing Co. v. Northwest Brewing Co. · 7 Wash. App. 424 - Tradewell Stores, Inc. v. T. B. & M., Inc. · Rosenburg v. Fremont Undertaking Co. · 3 Wash. 2d 520 - Seattle Street Railway & Municipal Employees Relief Ass'n v. Amalgamated Ass'n of Street Employees
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[1] The right to use a particular name as a trade name belongs to the one who first appropriates and uses it in connection with a particular business." "[2] A person, whether individual or corporate, may not use any name, not even his or its own, which is the distinctive feature of a trade name already in use by another, if such use by the one person tends to confuse, in the public mind, the business of such person with that of the other." "[3] The prior user may be entitled to relief regardless of actual fraud or intent to deceive on the part of a subsequent appropriator." Bishop v. Hanenburg, 39 Wn. App. 734, 736 , 695 P.2d 607 (1985) (quoting Money Savers Pharmacy, Inc. v. Koffler Stores (Western) Ltd,., 37 Wn. App. 602, 606-07 , 682 P.2d 960 (1984) (quoting Holmes v. Border Brokerage Co., 51 Wn.2d 746, 750-51 , 321 P.2d 898 (1958))).”
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.