In re Continental Baking Co.’s Empirical Analysis
390 F.2d 747 · 1968
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. (1973), Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd. (1977)
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1071 (§ 21 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Application of National Distillers and Chemical Corporation, Doing Business as National Distillers Products Co · American Drill Bushing Co. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co. · In re Laskin Bros. · Application of Fleet-Wing Corporation (Two Cases)
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It may well be that individual agreements regarding use and registration of trademarks are of “evidentiary value,” as the board here has demonstrated. However, in enacting Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act * * * Congress clearly charged the Patent Office with the initial responsibility of determining whether certain trademarks are entitled to registration, as distinguished from use, within the scope of that section. To hold that the present consent to register should control would be to allow individuals to take the law in their own hands, thus usurping the responsibility that Congress has placed in the Patent Office.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“do not look alike, they differ substantially in sound, and the meanings thereof are not the same. And, on the record presented in this case, we agree with applicant that opposer is estopped here to contend that the contemporaneous use of the marks would be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive, or that it would be damaged by the registration of”
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.