green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.3 score
“f it appears that the trademark for which he seeks protection is itself a misrepresentation to the public and has acquired a value with the public by fraudulent misrepresentation in advertisements, all relief will be denied to him.”
Treatment trajectory · 1903 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1903
1964
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
JTH Tax, Inc. v. H & R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc.
f it appears that the trademark for which he seeks protection is itself a misrepresentation to the public and has acquired a value with the public by fraudulent misrepresentation in advertisements, all relief will be denied to him.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc's B.R. Others, Inc.
In Worden, the Supreme Court said, if the plaintiff makes any material false statement in connection with the property which he seeks to protect, he loses his right to claim the assistance of a court of equity; that where any symbol or label claimed as a trade-mark is so constructed or worded as to make or contain a distinct assertion which is false ... the right to exclusive use of it cannot be maintained. 187 U.S. at 528 , 23 S.Ct. at 164 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc's B.R. Others
In Worden, the Supreme Court said, 41 if the plaintiff makes any material false statement in connection with the property which he seeks to protect, he loses his right to claim the assistance of a court of equity; that where any symbol or label claimed as a trade-mark is so constructed or worded as to make or contain a distinct assertion which is false ... the right to exclusive use of it cannot be maintained. 42 187 U.S. at 528 , 23 S.Ct. at 164 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corporation
Id. at 528 , 23 S.Ct. at 164 (use of the mark “Syrup of Figs” not protected because figs were not a main ingredient in the laxative).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Products Co. v. Lewis
In Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U. S. 516, 528 , 23 S. Ct. 161, 164 ( 47 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
KEMA, INC. v. Koperwhats
See Worden, 187 U.S. at 528 , 23 S.Ct. 161 (holding, when trademark owner seeks injunction “to restrain the defendant from injuring his property by making false representations to the public, it is essential that the plaintiff should not ... be himself guilty of any false representation”); Japan Telecomm., 287 F.3d at 870 (quoting above-referenced portion of Worden in describing application of defense of "unclean hands” to claim of trademark infringement).
discussed
Cited "see"
Inmuno Vital, Inc. v. Golden Sun, Inc.
See Worden, 187 U.S. at 528 , 23 S.Ct. 161 (application of unclean hands defense appropriate where the products sold under the SYRUP OF FIGS mark were not actually made from figs); Shatel, 697 F.2d at 1355 (alleged illegal conduct that is collateral to the trademark itself cannot trigger an unclean hands defense).
discussed
Cited "see"
Burger King Corp. v. Hall
Gilson, Trademark Protection and Practice § 8.12[13][a], at 8-295 to 8-296 (1990 ed.) (emphasis added; footnote omitted); see Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U.S. 516, 528 , 23 S.Ct. 161, 164 , 47 L.Ed. 282 (1903); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber & Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352, 1355 (11th Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Menendez v. Faber, Coe & Gregg, Inc.
See Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U.S. 516 , 23 S.Ct. 161 , 47 L.Ed. 282 (1903) ; Mulhens & Kropff, Inc. v. Ferd.
cited
Cited "see"
General Baking Co. v. Gorman
See Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U. S. 516 , 23 S. Ct. 161 , 47 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Amos-Richia v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins.
See Hartford Hire Insurance Company v. Wilson, 187 U. S. 467 , 23 Sup. Ct. 189, 47 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Worthington v. Anderson
See, e.g., Clinton & Worden v. Cal. Fig Syrup Co., 187 U.S. 516, 528 , 23 S.Ct. 161 , 47 L.Ed. 282 (1903).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
No. 03-4233
See, e.g., Clinton & Worden v. Cal. Fig Syrup Co., 187 U.S. 516, 528 , 23 S.Ct. 161 , 47 L.Ed. 282 (1903).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stewart
v.
Washington and Alaska Steamship Company
v.
Washington and Alaska Steamship Company
13.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 5, 1903.
Mr. Justice Brewer
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case resembles the preceding, in that it was a suit by a stockholder to restrain a corporation from paying certain taxes. The corporation, its president and treasurer were made defendants. The bill alleges that the two officers reside in the city of Tacoma, in the State of Washington; that to them is entrusted the general control and management of the business of the corporation. Where the directors reside is not shown, and there is no averment of any application to the directors or to the president and treasurer to take action to relieve from the burden of the taxes.. Under these circumstances the District Court properly dismissed the suit, and its judgment is
Aff/rmed.
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.