Gray v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

EAST, District Judge.

It may well be, as plaintiff asserts, that Comet (the defendant’s supplier of the accused device) deliberately set about to copy the assemblage and essential features of the Gray winch, but I am not sure from the evidence that Comet copied the design of the patented device shown in the Figs, of plaintiff’s patent Des. 193,943. In any event, my first chore is to ascertain if Gray’s claim of ornamental design for his winch is valid before being required to determine whether the accused device does infringe upon Gray’s patent, be it a deliberate or accidental copy.

True it is…