Meneely v. . Meneely’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 62 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If the defendants were using the name of Meneely with the intention of holding themselves out as the proprietors and managers of' the old-established foundry which was being conducted by the plaintiffs, and thus enticing away the plaintiffs’ customers, and if with that intention they used the name in such a way as to make it appear to be that of the plaintiffs’ firm, or resorted to any artifice to induce the belief that the establishment of the defendants was the same as that of the plaintiffs, and perhaps if, without any fraudulent intent, they had done acts calculated to mislead the public as to the identity of the establishments, and produce injury to the plaintiffs beyond that which resulted from the similarity of name, then the cases referred to sustain the proposition, not that the court of. equity would absolutely restrain the defendant, Meneely, from the use of his own name in any way or form, but simply that the court would enjoin him from using it in such a way as to deceive the public and injure the plaintiffs. The manner of using the name is ail that would be enjoined, not the simple use of it; for every man has the absolute right to use his own name in his own business; even though he may thereby interfere with or injure the business of another person bearing the same name, provided he does not resort to any artifice or contrivance for the purpose of producing the impression that the establishments are identical, or do anything calculated to mislead. Where the o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Royal

2. ““A person cannot make a trade-mark of his own name, and thus debar another having the same name from using it in his business, if he (toes so honestly, and without any intention to appropriate wrongfully the good will oí a business already established by others of the name. Every one has the absolute right to use his own name honestly in his own business for the irarpose of advertising it, even though he may thereby incidentally interfere wbh and injure the business of another having the name. In such ease the inconvenience or loss to which those having a common right to it are subjected is damnum absque injuria. But although he may thus u»se his name, he cannot resort to any artifice or do any act calculated to mislead the public as to the identity of the business firm or establishment, or of the article produced by them, and thus produce injury to the other heyond that which results from the similarity of name.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pillsbury v. Pillsbury Washburn Flour Mills Co.

3. ““He has a right to carry on the business of a blacking manufacturer honestly and fairly. He has a right to the use of his own name. I will not do anything to deprive him of that or any other name calculated to benefit himself in an honest way, but I must so prevent him from using it in any such a way as to deceive and defraud the public.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Royal