Baker & Bennett Co. v. N. D. Cass Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This cause comes here on appeal from a final decree entered on September 22, 1914, in the District Court for the Southern District of New York,, adjudging that letters patent of the United States No. 45,-249, dated February 17, 1914, for a design for sets of character biocks, granted to De Witt C. Baker, was a good and valid patent, and was infringed by defendants, and awarding a…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This cause comes here on appeal from a final decree entered on September 22, 1914, in the District Court for the Southern District of New York,, adjudging that letters patent of the United States No. 45,-249, dated February 17, 1914, for a design for sets of character biocks, granted to De Witt C. Baker, was a good and valid patent, and was infringed by defendants, and awarding a perpetual injunction. The' plaintiff having waived an accounting and elected to recover the sum of $250, it was also decreed…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). On October 18, 1913, De Witt Clinton Baker of New Rochelle, in the state of New York, filed an application in the United States Patent Office in which he stated that he had invented a new, original, and ornamental design for a set of character blocks, reference being made to an accompanying drawing as forming part thereof. It stated:
“The figure is a view in elevation of a set of character blocks, showing my new design. I claim: The ornamental design for a set of character blocks as shown.”
The drawing accompanying the application shows simply the alphabet…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Cahoone Barnet Manuf'g Co. v. Rubber & Celluloid Harness Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1891
- Foster v. CrossinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1890
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bayley & Sons, Inc. v. Standart Art Glass Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- H. D. Smith & Co. v. Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1919