North British Rubber Co. v. Racine Rubber Tire Co. of New York, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Suit by the North British Rubber Company, Rimited, against the Racine Rubber Tire Company of New York, Incorporated. Erom a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Suit by the North British Rubber Company, Rimited, against the Racine Rubber Tire Company of New York, Incorporated. Erom a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Suit is upon the design patent (45,092) issued to Alexander Johnson, of Edinburgh, Scotland, on December 30, 1913; application filed August 1, 1913. The patent covers a “design for a tire,” concerning which the application says: “The tire tread consists of a raised central strap or ridge extending continuously ai'ound the tire and having…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] The evidence is plain that the prime object of the plaintiff’s tire is not to please the eye, but to accomplish physical or mechanical desire, viz. to prevent skidding. The question that any instructed person would ask on examining the Johnson tire is not, “How does it look?” but “What will it do?” Rowe v. Blodgett, 112 Fed. 61, 50 C. C. A. 120. Nor is it doubtful that the purpose next in importance is to identify plaintiff’s anti-skidding device, and thereby in effect operate as a trade-mark; a purpose for which the patent law cannot be used, as was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rowe v. Blodgett & Clapp Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1901
- R. E. Dietz Co. v. Burr & Starkweather Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Theodore W. Foster & Bro. Co. v. Tilden-Thurber Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1912
- Weisgerber v. ClowneyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1904
- Royal Metal Mfg. Co. v. Art Metal WorksCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1904
3Cited by18 opinions
- Application of StevensCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
- In Re HargravesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Protex Signal Co. v. FenigerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1926
- Harmon Paper Co. v. PragerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- In Re KoehringCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.