L. E. Waterman Co. v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis
72 F.2d 272 · 1934
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp. (1961), Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc. (1956)
47 federal appellate · 6 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 Hurn v. Oursler · Elgin National Watch Company v. Illinois Watch Case Company W · Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson · Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney & Co. · Ex parte Automatic Switch 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In point of jurisdiction we might find difficulty, were it not for the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238 , 53 S.Ct. 586 , 77 L.Ed. 1148 . ****** “In the case at bar it is only necessary that we should hold that the cause of suit upon the registered trade-mark was substantial enough to support the jurisdiction of the District Court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The theory on which the wrong has been extended to include the use of the mark on goods never made or sold by the owner, is that, though the infringer's user cannot at the moment take away his customers, it may indirectly do so by tarnishing his reputation, or it may prevent him from extending his trade to the goods on which the infringer is using the mark.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““protects the owner against not only its use upon the articles to which he has applied it, but upon such other goods as might naturally be supposed to have come from him.” L. E. Waterman Co. v. Gordon, 72 F.2d 272, 273 (2d Cir. 1934).”
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.