Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer’s Empirical Analysis
591 F.2d 796 · 1978
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp. (1980), General Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus (1984)
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
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
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Califano v. Sanders · Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · Service v. Dulles · Batterton v. Francis
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Although the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically satisfying and valuable, the Committee’s intention is not to offer it copyright protection under the bill. Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, ladies’ dress, food processor, television set, or any other industrial product contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of the article, the design would not be copyrighted under the bill.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article that is normally a part of the useful article is considered a ‘useful article’.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 . 5 . The Sixth Circuit understood the House Report, supra p. 349, to show that the exclusion of utilitarian articles from copyright protection was meant for”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fascination with th[e] familiar shape.” Transcript of May 19, 1989 Hearing on the Register’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 4. The judge asked counsel for the Copyright Office: "If Picasso had painted a round object on a canvas, would you say because it depicts a familiar subject—namely, something that’s round—it can’t be copyrighted?” Id. 2 . See 37 C.F.R. § 202.10 (a): “In order to be accepted as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, the work must embody some creative authorship in its delineation or form.” 3 . At oral argument on appeal, counsel for the Register clarified that he did not mean to contend that '‘feel”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.