Automatic Pencil Sharpener Co. v. Goldsmith Bros.

• Decision Date: 25 July 1911
• Parties: AUTOMATIC PENCIL SHARPENER CO. v. GOLDSMITH BROS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

190 F. 205

AUTOMATIC PENCIL SHARPENER CO. v. GOLDSMITH BROS.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

July 25, 1911

Breed, Abbott & Morgan, for complainant.

Milton Dammann, for defendant.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is a motion for preliminary injunction to restrain the sale at cut rates of patented machines bought under restrictions as to price of which defendant had full knowledge. The machines and boxes also bore marks, numbers, and notices which defendant mutilated and erased before offering for sale at the cut rate. There are no affidavits submitted by defendant and is no dispute as to the facts.

This case is not to be distinguished from the many cases decided in various Circuit Courts of Appeals holding that complainant is entitled to an injunction under the circumstances disclosed in this case. Heaton-Peninsular Company v. Eureka Specialty Company, 77 F. 288, 25 C.C.A. 267, 35 L.R.A. 728; Cortelyou v. Lowe, 111 F. 1005, 49 C.C.A. 671; Victor Talking Machine Company v. The Fair, 123 F. 424, 61 C.C.A. 58; The Fair v. Dover Manufacturing Company, 166 F. 117, 92 C.C.A. 43. I find nothing in Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 Sup.Ct. 722, 52 L.Ed. 1086, and Dr. Miles Medical Company v. Jaynes Drug Company (C.C.) 149 F. 838, that deprive these cases of authority in patent causes. The court in this district will follow the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Cortelyou v. Lowe, supra.

Injunction is granted as prayed for.