Legal Opinion
H. C. White Co. v. Morton E. Converse & Son Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 6, 1927No. 327PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtL. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stat-stating the facts as above). The design patent appears to us to be not a design patent • at all. We recognize that in «esthetics there are no standards, and that) the design need not please such'sensibilities as we may personally chance to possess. Nevertheless, we must find that the disclosure has at least a rudimentary «esthetic appeal, for so we interpret the word, “ornamental.” This we have more than once said. Rowe v. Blodgett, 112 F. 61; Ashley v. Weeks, 220 F. 899, 901; Dietz v. Burr, 243 F. 592, 594; Wilson v. Haber (C. C. A.) 275 F. 346. The rule obtains elsewhere. Boyle…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Marston v. . SwettNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- United States v. Harvey Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Kirsch Mfg. Co. v. Gould Mersereau Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Ashley v. Weeks-Numan Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
- Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hunger-Ford Brass & Copper Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Mazer v. SteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Drackett Chemical Co. v. Chamberlain Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933
- In Re ThuauCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1943
- Old Town Ribbon & Carbon Co. v. Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- R. Hoe & Co. v. Goss Printing Press Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.