Adriance, Platt & Co. v. National Harrow Co.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1903 |
| Docket Number | 59. |
| Parties | ADRIANCE, PLATT & CO. v. NATIONAL HARROW CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
S. D Bensley, for appellant.
H. M Lane, for appellee.
Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.
This is an action in equity to restrain the defendant from the publication of circulars and letters asserting the violation by the complainant of the defendant's rights under letters patent, and threatening the complainant's customers with suits. The court below dismissed the bill.
The facts bring it within the principle of the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a suit brought in the District of New Jersey against the present defendant. The doctrine there declared is well settled by the authorities, and the opinion in that case contains a sufficient citation of them without further reference. A B. Farquhar Co. v. The National Harrow Company, 102 F 714, 42 C.C.A. 600, 49 L.R.A. 755.
The complainant is a manufacturing corporation having its place of business at Poughkeepsie in this state, and in January, 1897, commenced manufacturing spring-tooth harrows, known as the 'Buckeye Harrow,' built conformably to the patent of Henry J. Case, an application for which was then pending, and which was subsequently issued to the complainant as assignee. The defendant is a New Jersey corporation, doing business at Utica in this state, which has acquired title to a great number of patents for improvements relating to spring-tooth harrows. It is not a manufacturer of harrows, but makes it its business to grant licenses upon royalties to manufacturers. Its licenses provide a uniform scale of prices for harrows and harrow parts, and bind the licensees not to sell their machines at any deduction or allow any rebate. During the season of 1897 the complainant sold about 700 harrows; in the season of 1898 it sold about 2,000 harrows; and its business promised much larger sales in the coming season. Before its harrows were put in the market in 1897, it was informed by the defendant that they were claimed to be an infringement of some of the defendant's patents. Correspondence and interviews ensued. The complainant forwarded one of its harrows to the defendant for examination. The defendant continued to assert the charge of infringement, and sought to induce the complainant to take a license. The complainant insisted that its harrows were not an infringement, and requested the defendant to bring suit and have the question settled. To this suggestion the defendant refused to accede, and replied in substance that it proposed to prevent the complainant from building harrows in its own way. Thereupon the defendant commenced sending out circular letters to the complainant's customers throughout the state, the New England states, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, and other states. This circular contained a picture of the complainant's harrow, with the description: 'The 'Buckeye' manufactured by Adriance, Platt & Company, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and claimed by us to be made in infringement of our patents. ' The circular cautioned dealers not to buy any spring-tooth harrows not bearing the defendant's license label, stating: 'We have yet to find a harrow of recent and modern construction that does not embody one or more of our patents. ' The circular also contained this statement: 'We regret that we are obliged to hold the dealers responsible, but this cannot be avoided, as in many cases the manufacturers would not be able to settle our claims. ' These circulars were followed by letters to the same persons, and of the same purport. Extracts from some of them may be given by way of illustration. The following is an excerpt from one:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eclipse Mach. Co. v. JH Specialty Mfg. Co.
...to be valid its claims which had been so adjudicated, and in an honest effort to protect them from invasion. Adriance, Platt & Co. v. National Harrow Co. (C. C. A.) 121 F. 827, 829; Parker Pen Co. v. Finstone (D. C.) 7 F.(2d) 753, 756; Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 179 F. 1......
-
Hall v. Wright
...Powell Products, 7 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 562; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp. v. Fear, 9 Cir., 1939, 104 F.2d 892; Adriance Platt & Co. v. National Harrow Co., 2 Cir., 1903, 121 F. 827. On the other hand, among the acts of unfair competition claimed by defendants Wright and B & W, Inc. is the alle......
-
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Company
... ... enforce his rights, if done in good faith. Adriance, ... Platt & Co. v. National Harrow Co. 121 F. 827, 58 C.C.A ... 163; ... ...
-
Fashion Two Twenty, Inc. v. Steinberg, 71 C 665.
...and threatening conduct. The court noted that such threats could be enjoined. (209 F. at 356). See also Adriance, Platt & Co. v. National Harrow Co., 121 F. 827 (C.C.A.2 1903). Wolf v. Gold, 9 A.D.2d 257, 193 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1st Dept. 1959), cited by plaintiff, was an appeal from a denial of a......