Legal Opinion
Pellegrini v. Allegrini
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 16, 1924No. 3071PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DICKINSON, District Judge.
The motive underlying design patents and copyrights of works of art is one readily appreciated. The beautiful and the development of a love of the beautiful and of the artistic sense and taste is as much necessary to a well-rounded life as are the useful things. A like comment applies to our national life. It is well, therefore, to encourage the production of works of art. The policy is in line with, and in one sense an extension of, the policy avowed in our Constitution “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Article 1, § 8, el. 8. These policies, if…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- King Features Syndicate v. FleischerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- In re FarrellDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1914
- J. H. White Mfg. Co. v. ShapiroDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1915
- Bracken v. RosenthalU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Arnstein v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Mazer v. SteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947
- Stanley v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1950
- Ansehl v. Puritan Pharmaceutical Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.