Legal Opinion
Scovill Mfg. Co. v. United States Electric Mfg. Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 24, 1940PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
My judgment in this cause, for the reasons hereinafter stated, is—
1. That the single claim of each of the three design patents, namely, Tompkins No. 99,316, No. 99,336 and No. 101,800, and Claims Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13 and 14 of the mechanical patent, Tompkins No. 2,-097,222, are invalid for lack of invention.
2. That the plaintiff has not any locus standi to claim infringement of the trademark “Streamlite”, No. 344,408.
3. That the defendant was guilty of infringement of the trademark “Zephyrlite”, No. 342,367, and plaintiff is entitled to the relief hereinafter…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Root v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Nat Lewis Purses, Inc. v. Carole Bags, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Dowell v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Industrial Rayon Corp. v. Dutchess Underwear Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Quabaug Rubber Company v. Fabiano Shoe Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1977
- Telechron, Inc. v. Telicon Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1951
- Rowley v. TresenbergDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1941
- Forman v. American Exp. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- In re DavisCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949