Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. Comstock Unhairing Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 383,258, issued to John W. Sutton, May 22, 1888, for a machine for removing the hairs from fur skins. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
COXE, District Judge.
The circuit court of appeals has passed upon every issue presented by this record upon facts which differ in no essential particular. An extended discussion of the questions debated at bar is therefore unnecessary.
The only new evidence is the French patent to Lambert & Kokesch, the patent to Lake being the English patent for the same machine. It is conceded that, the drawings of the two patents are identical and the description substantially similar. The differences are due mainly to- the translation from the one language to the other; they are insignificant and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Cohn v. United States Corset Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Unhairing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1902
3Cited by15 opinions
- Lever Bros. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1943
- Stead Lens Co. v. Kryptok Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
- Hollywood-Maxwell Co. v. Street's of TulsaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
- Kryptok Co. v. Stead Lens Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1913
- Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1984
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.