Citation network
Sears, Roebuck and Co. Vs. Stiffel Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 09, 1964
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. StiffelSearch
-
Co. - 376 U.S. 225 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. StiffelSearch
-
Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964) Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. StiffelSearch
-
laws of the United States enacted pursuant to constitutional authority, are the supreme law of the land. See Sperry v. FloridaSearch
-
by the state law. Sola Elec. Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
are not given as favors, as was the case of monopolies given by the Tudor monarchs, see The Case of Monopolies (Darcy v. AlleinSearch
-
Cuno Engineering Corp. v. AutomaticSearch
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. SupermarketSearch
-
U. S. 192 , 107 U. S. 199 -200 (1883). Once the patent issues, it is strictly construed. United States v. MasoniteSearch
-
the patentee's control over the product when it leaves his hands is sharply limited, see United States v. UnivisSearch
-
and the patent monopoly may not be used in disregard of the antitrust laws, see International Business Machines Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
including the right to make it in precisely the shape it carried when patented -- passes to the public. Kellogg Co. v. NationalSearch
-
Singer Mfg. Co. v. JuneSearch
-
Kellogg Co. v. NationalSearch
-
the Page 376 U. S. 233 copying of the article itself or award damages for such copying. Cf. G. Ricordi & Co. v. HaendlerSearch
-
Stevens-Davis Co. v. MatherSearch
-
In spite of this, the Court of Appeals, in its opinions both in this case and in Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. CompcoSearch
-
U. S. 234 , relied upon one of its previous decisions in a tradename case, Independent Nail & Packing Co. v. StrongholdSearch
-
to have palmed off its goods as those of a competitor, since the plaintiff was not a competitor. Lady Esther, Ltd., v. LadySearch
-
to that of a corporation already registered. Investors Syndicate of America, Inc., v. HughesSearch
-
Patent rights exist only by virtue of statute. Wheaton v. PetersSearch
-
Much American patent law derives from English patent law. See Pennock v. DialogueSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. StiffelSearch
-
See Sperry v. FloridaSearch
-
Sola Elec. Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
The Case of Monopolies (Darcy v. AlleinSearch
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. SupermarketSearch
-
United States v. MasoniteSearch
-
United States v. UnivisSearch
-
International Business Machines Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. G. Ricordi & Co. v. HaendlerSearch
-
Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. CompcoSearch
-
Independent Nail & Packing Co. v. StrongholdSearch
-
Lady Esther, Ltd., v. LadySearch
-
Investors Syndicate of America, Inc., v. HughesSearch
-
See Pennock v. DialogueSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial