Bayley & Sons, Inc. v. Standart Art Glass Co.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | 166. |
| Citation | 249 F. 478 |
| Parties | BAYLEY & SONS, Inc., v. STANDART ART GLASS CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
The action is upon design patent 49,593, applied for March 25 and issued September 5, 1916. The specification is for an 'ornamental electric lighting fixture,' comprising a 'bell-shaped canopy having a straight lower edge,' below which is suspended in close proximity 'a hemispherical bowl having a straight upper edge. ' The claim is for the fixture 'substantially as shown and described.' The drawing adds nothing to the above description, except that it shows the 'canopy' as having six equidistant ribs, which (for all that is disclosed) might be either integral with the material of the fixture, or functionally a skeleton or framing into which the material is inserted or built. On October 12, 1915, the same patentee obtained a mechanical patent (1,156,454) for an 'improvement in electric lighting fixtures,' claiming such fixture 'having a shade and a dish; the shade being formed of a plurality of panels formed of glass' secured together by ribs, with top and bottom binding channels each of them being 'a flat ring with inclined walls,' in conjunction with 'means for securing the ribs to the channels and for connecting the dish to the shade.'
The evidence shows that plaintiff called this fixture the 'Equalite,' and sold it with success; witnesses testifying that the 'light * * * was pleasing to the aesthetic emotions (and) it acquired distinctiveness and individuality among the trade. ' Comparing the drawing of the mechanical patent, as explained in its specification with the drawing of the patent in suit, it is plain that both draftsmen had before them a single device, that the ribs of both drawings are the same, that said ribs have a mechanical purpose, and, in short, that the design patented is the contour shown in vertical section of the 'shade and dish' of the mechanical improvement, though for design purposes the words 'canopy and hemispherical bowl' are substituted.
The trial court found infringement, but denied an accounting, for reasons here immaterial. A final decree having therefore issued, defendant took this appeal.
John L Lotsch and Isaac Steinhaus, both of New York City, for appellants.
Lester F. Dittenhoefer, of New York City (Dodson & Roe, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.
HOUGH Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Error is alleged in that the patent in suit was not held anticipated by the earlier grant to the same patentee for a mechanical improvement.
If the same man at the same time devises a container of pleasing design and a mechanical contrivance conveniently united with the aesthetic covering, he has made two inventions; and, though he patents one, that is no reason why within the statutory two years he may not patent the other. Such act would not be necessarily a case of double patenting, which is always unlawful. The question is unaffected by the accident that one of the two compared patents is for a design and the other for a mechanical arrangement of matter; and it is always the same, viz.: Is the same thing or inventive thought disclosed by both? Williams, etc., Co. v. Neverslip, etc., Co. (C.C.) 136 F. 210; President, etc., Co. v. Macwilliam (D.C.) 233 F. 439.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford-Empire Co. v. Obear-Nester Glass Co.
...v. Shur-On Optical Co., 16 F.(2d) 1013 (C. C. A. 2), affirming on opinion in (D. C.) 9 F.(2d) 932; or design, Bayley & Sons v. Standart Art Glass Co., 249 F. 478 (C. C. A. 2). With objects and methods alike, a comparison for differences in the two apparatuses must lie in the mechanical mean......
-
Gross v. Norris
...coexist. Ashley v. Weeks-Numan Co. (C. C. A.) 220 F. 899; Dietz v. Burr & Starkweather Co. (C. C. A.) 243 F. 592; Bayley & Sons v. Standart Art Glass Co. (C. C. A.) 249 F. 478; Baker v. Hughes-Evans Co. (C. C. A.) 270 F. 97. It is true that a design patent cannot be used to protect a mechan......
-
HC White Co. v. Morton E. Converse & Son Co.
...v. Neal (C. C.) 90 F. 725; Williams Calk Co. v. Neverslip Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 136 F. 210. We do not think our decision in Bayley v. Standart Art Co. (C. C. A.) 249 F. 478, is to the contrary, because the mechanical patent, which was there the earlier and disclosed the design, did not require i......
-
Hopkins v. Waco Products
...claim for their product we think is of little, if any, benefit in the instant matter. As was pointed out in Bayley & Sons, Inc., v. Standart Art Glass Co., et al., 2 Cir., 249 F. 478, in response to a similar argument, there is nothing in the record to show what portion of the asserted succ......