Ball Glove-Fastening Co. v. Ball & Socket Fastener Co.
| Decision Date | 16 August 1888 |
| Citation | 36 F. 309 |
| Parties | BALL GLOVE FASTENING CO. v. BALL & SOCKET FASTENER CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
John R Bennett and W. B. H. Dowse, for complainant.
T. W Clarke, for defendant.
The bill in this case prays for an injunction, as well as an account against the defendant. It seems to me that this is sufficient to give a court of equity jurisdiction, though the defendant is a mere licensee; and it has been so held. McKay v. Smith, 29 F. 295; Hat Sweat Co. v Porter, 34 F. 745; Seibert Co. v. Manning, 32 F. 625. The defendant company is the sole licensee of the complainant of three patents granted to Edwin J. Kraetzer for improvements in glove fasteners. The license contract was dated March 21, 1885, and is still in force. The present suit is for an account of the royalties due under the agreement and an injunction, meantime, to restrain the defendant from using the patents in defiance of the agreement. Under these circumstances, the defendant cannot and does not deny the validity of the Kraetzer patents, but the defense of non-infringement is brought forward and relied upon.
The complainant insists that the defendant's fastener is an infringement of the second claim of Kraetzer patent No. 290,067, and the fourth claim of Kraetzer patent No. 306,021. These claims are as follows:
The complainant's fastener, made under the Kraetzer patents is composed of two parts,-- a button member secured to the under flap of a glove, and a flexible button-hole member secured to the upper flap, and adapted to be pressed down upon the stud of the button member, which it grasps in the jaws of its flanged ring socket. The button member consists of three parts,-- a solid stud or knob formed into a ball at its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Universal Rim Co. v. General Motors Corporation
...274, 68 L. Ed. 582. 2 Compare Atwood v. Portland Co. (C. C.) 10 F. 283; McKay v. Smith (C. C.) 29 F. 295; Ball Glove Fastening Co. v. Ball & Socket Fastener Co. (C. C.) 36 F. 309; Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. (C. C. A.) 154 F. 365; Thomson Spot Welder Co. v. National......
-
Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.
... ... Co. v. Porter (C.C.) 34 F. 745; Ball Glove Fastener ... Co. v. Ball & Socket Co. (C.C.) 36 F ... ...
-
Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Barbed-Wire Fence Co.
... ... Ball Glove Fastening Co. v. Ball & Socket Fastener ... Co., 36 ... ...
-
Hartford-Empire Co. v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
...Co. et al., D.C., 260 F. 223; McKay v. Smith et al., C.C., 29 F. 295; Buhl v. Stephens, C.C., 84 F. 922, and Ball Glove Fastening Co. v. Ball & Socket Fastening Co., C.C., 36 F. 309. On the question of the recent broadening of the common-law remedy by replevin see Dawson v. Kentucky Distill......