Legal Opinion

C. F. Mueller Co. v. A. Zeregas Sons

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 17, 1926No. 353PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Raymond Lumber Co. v. Raymond Light & Water Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Elliott Co. v. Roto Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
  3. Thompson v. N. T. Bushnell Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1899
  4. Columbia Ins. Co. of New Jersey v. Mart Waterman Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
  5. James E. Tompkins Co. v. New York Woven Wire Mattress Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCHCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
  2. Callison v. DeanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
  3. Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co. v. R. C. Storrie & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
  4. (PC) McDowell v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
  5. Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCHCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API