Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Pashek v. Dunlop Tyre & Rubber Co.

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided June 24, 1925No. 971PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WESTENHAVER, District Judge.

The bill is based on and charges infringement of design patent No. 52,962, issued February 4. 1919, to plaintiff. The patent is for an ornamental design for an automobile tire. The ornamentation is applied to the tread surface. It consists of a central circumferential strap or ridge, continuous grooves on each side thereof, except as broken by lugs connecting the central strap with the skid pads, and a series of skid pads on each side of said grooves, with rearwardly inclined grooves or openings between the pads. Each pad is connected with the circumferential ridge…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Rowe v. Blodgett & Clapp Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1901
  2. Imperial Glass Co. v. HeiseyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1923
  3. R. E. Dietz Co. v. Burr & Starkweather Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
  4. North British Rubber Co. v. Racine Rubber Tire Co. of New York, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
  5. Charles Boldt Co. v. Nivison-Weiskopf Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re HargravesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  2. In Re KoehringCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
  3. Rowley v. TresenbergDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1941
  4. Follen v. Lambert Tire & Rubber Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1925
  5. In Re HargravesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API