Legal Opinion
Van Heusen Products, Inc. v. Earl & Wilson
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 15, 1924PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEARNED HAND, District Judge.
It seems to me best to approach this case by inquiring first whether the conceded success of both the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ collars is due to some invention- common to both, afterwards to inquire whether that invention is to be found in any. of the patents in suit, and finally whether it had earlier appeared in the art and was overlooked. The first question is easily answered. Van Heusen’s collars appeared in April, 1921, and almost at once got a vogue which puts it beyond any doubt that they indeed answered the proverbial long felt want. This conclusion…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Lovell Manufacturing Co. v. CarySupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Collar Co. v. Van DusenSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Western States MacH. Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Yablick v. Protecto Safety Appliance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1927
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Williams Bros. Well Treating Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1936
- Franc-Strohmenger & Cowan, Inc. v. Arthur Siegman, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Trussell Mfg. Co. v. Wilson-Jones Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.