Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. Jay-Day Frocks Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Per curiam
In this circuit it is firmly established that more is required for a valid design patent than that the design be new and pleasing enough to catch the trade; it must be the product of “invention,” by which is meant that conception of the design must demand some exceptional talent beyond the skill of the ordinary designer. Nat Lewis Purses, Inc., v. Carole Bags, Inc., 2 Cir., 83 F.2d 475. Such a standard is necessarily vague and difficult of application. Nevertheless, “we are obliged to determine, as best we may, whether the design in question is original and ¿esthetic and involved a step…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nat Lewis Purses, Inc. v. Carole Bags, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- A. C. Gilbert Co. v. ShemitzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
3Cited by38 opinions
- Alfred Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
- General Time Instruments Corp. v. United States Time Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Chas. D. Briddell, Inc. v. Alglobe Trading Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
- Associated Plastics Companies, Inc. v. Gits Molding CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- Gold Seal Importers, Inc. v. Morris White Fashions, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.