Legal Opinion
London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corp.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided June 21, 1910No. 861PublishedCited by 23 opinions
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Action by George G. London against the Everett H. Dunbar Corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, District Judge.
This is a writ of error for review of the rulings of the District Court in a qui tarn action, brought under the third paragraph of section 4901, Rev. St. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3388), to recover a penalty or penalties for affixing to an unpatented article the word “patent,” or a word importing that the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public.
“Sec. 4901. Every person who, in any manner, marks upon anything made, used or sold by him for which he has not obtained a patent, the name or any imitation of the name of any person who has obtained a patent…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- United States v. Union Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Taft v. Stephens Lith. & Eng. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1889
- Hotchkiss v. Samuel Cupples Wooden-Ware Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- United States v. Harold JudsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- State Ex Rel. Sowers v. OlwellWashington Supreme Court · 1964
- Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Samuel C. Brody v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1957
- Clontech Laboratories, Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp. (Formerly Life Technologies, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.