Legal Opinion
Harmon Paper Co. v. Prager
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 3, 1923No. 133PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). We are agreed that no error was committed in declaring the design patent void. It is asserted for plaintiff that there must be infringement, because “no ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would notice any difference between the paper sold by defendant and that patented by plaintiff.”
But plaintiff did not patent a wall paper, but a “design for wall paper,” and the test is not to compare defendant’s paper with plaintiff’s paper, but with the design; if that be done, there is no infringement. But what plaintiff really seeks…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kurtz v. Belle Hat Lining Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- Collar Co. v. Van DusenSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- General Electric Co. v. Laco-Philips Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
- North British Rubber Co. v. Racine Rubber Tire Co. of New York, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Carver v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Blumcraft Of Pittsburgh v. Citizens And Southern National Bank Of South CarolinaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1969
- Rokap Corp. v. LammDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1935
- Scott & Williams, Inc. v. Aristo Hosiery Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- American Merri-Lei Corp. v. F. W. Woolworth Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1929
- Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Citizens & Southern National BankCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1969
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.