C. F. Mueller Co. v. A. Zeregas Sons
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the fácts as above).
The design patent should have been invalidated. It does not pretend to cover anything except a piece of dough shaped like a letter W. Even assuming invention, it is open to at least two objections: (1) There is nothing about the design or shape which appeals to the iesthetic sense (Dietz Co. v. Burr, etc., Co., 243 P. 592, 155 C. C. A. 290); and (2) the record before us proves that the design is intended merely to protect the shape of what comes out of plaintiff’s patented machine (Harmon Paper Co. v. Prager [C. C. A.] 287 P. 841).
Considering the mechanical…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Raymond Lumber Co. v. Raymond Light & Water Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
- Elliott Co. v. Roto Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Thompson v. N. T. Bushnell Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1899
- Columbia Ins. Co. of New Jersey v. Mart Waterman Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- James E. Tompkins Co. v. New York Woven Wire Mattress Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
3Cited by6 opinions
- Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCHCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- Callison v. DeanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
- Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co. v. R. C. Storrie & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
- (PC) McDowell v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
- Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCHCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.