Hotchkiss v. Samuel Cupples Wooden-Ware Co.
District Court, E.D. Missouri
At Law. Action by Charles A. Hotchkiss, for himself and to the use of the United States, against the Samuel Cupples Wooden-Ware Company to recover penalties under Rev. St. § 4901, for marking certain unpatented articles with the word “Patented,” for the purpose of deceiving the public.
1Opinion of the Court
THAYER, District Judge.
As yon are aware, this is a suit brought by the plaintiff in his own behalf and in behalf of the United States, to recover penalties imposed by the laws of the United States for marking an nnpatented article with the word “Patented ” and doing so with intent to deceive the public. The motive that inspired congress to enact such a' law was fairly stated to yon by Mr. Eccles, in opening tbe case, and nothing further need be said by me upon that subject. The complaint in this case charges that defendant marked the words “Patented, September 28, 1880,” on 1,420 rope reels…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1910
- Felt ex rel. United States v. Ronson Art Metal Works, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1952
- Cornick v. Stry-Lenkoff Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.