Legal Opinion
Winget Kickernick Co. v. Kenilworth Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided March 1, 1926No. 151PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANTON, Circuit Judge.
This suit is on claims 1, 2, and 5 of patent No. 1,389,067 for an undergarment for women. The object is to provide an undergarment with a closed crotch and an opening alongside the leg, which shall be adapted to have the leg closed to produce a bloomer construction, and which shall fit the wearer, no matter what the position of the body, without any strain or tension at any point, and which shall be particularly comfortable when worn. It may be either a union garment, consisting of waist and leg portions, or drawers-bloomers only. It is adapted to slip up over the form…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wright Co. v. Herring-Curtiss Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Kirchberger v. American Acetylene Burner Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1904
- Troy Wagon Works Co. v. Ohio Trailer Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1921
- Belber Trunk & Bag Co. v. Seward Trunk & Bag Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
- Waterloo Cement Machinery Corp. v. EngelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
3Cited by10 opinions
- Highway Appliances Co. v. American Concrete Expansion Joint Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1937
- Byron Jackson Co. v. WilsonDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1942
- Winget Kickernick Co. v. Silo-Ette Underwear Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
- Wolff v. Jordan Marsh Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1935
- (PC) Ransom v. HerrDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.