Franklin Press, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
597 F.2d 270 · 1979
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (§ 2 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 6 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (§ 7 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Estate of Beckwith v. Commissioner of Patents · United States Steel Corp. v. Vasco Metals Corp. · Victor Tool and MacHine Corp. v. Sun Control Awnings, Inc. · In re Hercules Fasteners, Inc. · Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc.
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.
“since the phrase contain(ed) proprietary indicia of origin of parties other than applicant, the registration thereof as a part of a composite mark would be inimical and contrary to the rights of ownership possessed therein by these parties”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The purpose of a disclaimer is to show that the applicant is not making claim to the exclusive appropriation of such matter except in the precise relation and association in which it appeared in the drawing or description.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The effect of a disclaimer is to disavow any exclusive right to the use of a specified word, phrase, or design outside of its use within a composite mark.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.