R. W. Rogers Co. v. Wm. Rogers Manuf'g Co.’s Empirical Analysis
70 F. 1017 · 1895
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1978 · most notably Howe Scale Company of 1886 v. Wyckoff Seamans Benedict (1905), Taylor Wine Co. v. Bully Hill Vineyards, Inc. (1978)
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 William Rogers Manufacturing Co. v. Simpson, Hall, Miller & Co. · Rogers & Brother v. Rogers · William Rogers Manuf'g Co. v. R. W. Rogers Co.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A body of associates, wbo organize a corporation for manufacturing and selling a particular product, are not lawfully entitled to employ as tbeir corporate name in that business tbe name of one of their number, when it appears that such name has been intentionally selected in order to compete with an established concern of the same name, engaged in similar business, and divert the latter’s trade to themselves by confusing the identity of the products of both, and leading purchasers to buy those of one for those of the other. * * * The corporators chose the name unnecessarily, and, having done so for the purpose of unfair competition, cannot be permitted to use it to the injury of the complainant.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A corporation which, by arrangement with one R. W. R., takes his name, and stamps it upon articles sold by it, with the purpose of inducing the public to think that in purchasing such articles they are purchasing the product of another ‘R’ Company of established reputation, will be restrained from using such stamp.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Von Faber v. Faber
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.