Legal Opinion
Warner Bros. v. American Lady Corset Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 25, 1942PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CONGER, District Judge.
Suit for infringement of patent and for collection of 'royalties claimed to be due by the reason of a license agreement between the parties.
Plaintiff is a leading manufacturer of corsets and defendant is a rival corset manufacturer.
The facts generally out of which this controversy arose are as follows: One John Field, on or about March 11, 1933, applied for a patent for a corset and/or girdle as a division of a pending application. The patent was granted on March 26, 1935, and has been assigned to the plaintiff, who is now the legal owner and holder thereof. The patent…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Drackett Chemical Co. v. Chamberlain Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933
- Headley Good Roads Co. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1923
3Cited by4 opinions
- Warner Bros. v. American Lady Corset Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Crew v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. Olga Company (Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. Olga Company (Inc.)District Court, S.D. New York · 1974