Legal Opinion
Eloesser-Heynemann Co. v. Bayly-Underhill Mfg. Co.
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided November 13, 1928No. 8046PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McDERMOTT, District Judge.
The plaintiff holds a patent for an ornamental design for children’s rompers (No. 56,450— October 26, 1920). There is no detail in the specification. The action is for infringement; the defenses the usual ones of nonpatentability, anticipation, and noninfringement.
The plaintiff’s patent is succinctly described by the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit as follows:
“The design patent involved, as illustrated, contains no written description; but the drawings show a front and rear view of a garment with a Dutch square neck, short sleeves, simulation of a belt below…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Gorham Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Toledo, P. C. & L. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Elliott & Co. v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
- R. E. Dietz Co. v. Burr & Starkweather Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ostow & Jacobs, Inc. v. Morgan-Jones, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1960
- W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Worth Featherweight Pen Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1930
- Belding Heminway Co. v. Future Fashions, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- Royal Lace Paper Works v. U. S. Lace Paper Works, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1935
- Borders v. RayDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.