Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. Jay-Day Frocks
| Decision Date | 10 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 362.,362. |
| Citation | 112 F.2d 715 |
| Parties | NEUFELD-FURST & CO., Inc., v. JAY-DAY FROCKS Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Nat C. Helman, of New York City (Harry Price, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles Sonnenreich, of New York City, for appellee.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
In this circuit it is firmly established that more is required for a valid design patent than that the design be new and pleasing enough to catch the trade; it must be the product of "invention," by which is meant that conception of the design must demand some exceptional talent beyond the skill of the ordinary designer. Nat Lewis Purses, Inc., v. Carole Bags, Inc., 2 Cir., 83 F.2d 475. Such a standard is necessarily vague and difficult of application. Nevertheless, "we are obliged to determine, as best we may, whether the design in question is original and esthetic and involved a step beyond the prior art requiring what is termed `inventive genius.'" See A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Shemitz, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 98, 99. In the case at bar the prior art showed numerous designs for dresses each of which had one or more of the salient features of the patent in suit. To combine them into the design of the patent produced a dress of new and pleasing appearance which caught the fancy of the purchasing public in the summer of 1938, but we cannot say that it required more than the skill of a good dressmaker who had, or is chargeable with, knowledge of the prior art. We think the patent is invalid. The decree should be reversed and the complaint dismissed. So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dale Electronics, Inc. v. RCL Electronics, Inc.
...have insisted that the design reflect "some exceptional talent beyond the skill of the ordinary designer," Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. Jay-Day Frocks, Inc., 112 F.2d 715, 716 (2 Cir. 1940), or "inventive genius," A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Shemitz, 45 F.2d 98, 99 (2 Cir. 1930). We have noted that in v......
-
Chas. D. Briddell, Inc. v. Alglobe Trading Corp.
...Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 500, 503. 3 See, e.g., A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Shemitz, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 98, 99; Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. Jay-Day Frocks, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 715, 716; Nat Lewis Purses v. Carole Bags, 2 Cir., 83 F.2d 475, 476; White v. Leanore Frocks, Inc., 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 113, 115; Alfr......
-
BUTCHER BOY REFRIG. DOOR CO. v. PHILLIPS REFRIG. PROD. CO.
...meant that conception of the design must demand some exceptional talent beyond the skill of the ordinary designer. Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. JayDay Frocks, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 715; see also S. Dresner & Son v. Doppelt, 7 Cir., 120 F.2d 50; Zangerle & Peterson Co. v. Venice Furniture & Novelty Mfg......
-
Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts
...45 F.2d 98, 99. We have noted that, as in all patents, there must be a substantial advance over the prior art. Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. Jay-Day Frocks, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 715, 716. We have suggested that relief for designers could be obtained if they were permitted to copyright their designs, a......