Bene v. Jeantet

Decision Date05 March 1889
Citation129 U.S. 683,32 L.Ed. 803,9 S.Ct. 428
PartiesBENE et al. v. JEANTET
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

S. T. Smith, for appellant.

W. P. S. Melvin, for appellee.

LAMAR, J.

This is a suit in equity, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, by John Bene and Adolph Gr unberg against Emile Jeantet, praying an injunction, accounting, and damages for an alleged infringement of reissued letters patent No. 8,637, granted to Bene, March 25, 1879, on an application filed March 4, 1879, for an improvement in the process of refining and bleaching hair. Counsel for complainant stated in the record that no claim is made in this suit for the bleaching of hair, except so far as the bleaching may result incidentally from the process of refining; and the only issue presented by the pleadings, therefore, relates to the question of infringement so far as the process of refining hair is concerned, there being no issue raised as to the validity of the patent in any respect. The nature and object of the invention are set forth in the specification as follows: 'This invention relates to the treatment of all kinds of coarse hair, which, in its natural state, has little commercial value, and is entirely unfit for toilet uses and purposes. The said treatment serves, mainly, to refine the hair, or reduce the diameter of the hairs, and to render them more pliable and glossy; but it also serves to partially bleach the hair or lighten its color or tint, and fit it to pass though any of the ordinary dyeing processes, whereby it may be given any shade or color desired or possible. In carrying out my invention, for the purpose of producing from the coarse, harsh hair above mentioned, a soft, pliable hair of fine texture, I treat the said coarse hair to a bath composed of such chemicals of chemical substances as will dissolve away a portion of the surface of each hair, and thus reduce its diameter. I find that a solution of a chlorine salt dissolved in an excess of muriatic acid serves my purpose as a bath for this refining treatment. I claim as my invention (1) the method of refining all grades of coarse hair, which consists in subjecting it to the action of chemicals, whereby the surface of each hair is corroded or dissolved away, and its diameter reduced, substantially as set forth; (2) the method of refining coarse hair, which consists in subjecting it to the action of a bath composed of muriatic acid, in which is dissolved a chlorine salt, substantially as set forth; (3) the method of refining and bleaching all kinds and grades of coarse hair, which consists, first, in bathing and manipulating the same in a chemical bath, composed of acid and a chlorines salt, and then in a bleaching bath, composed of acids and bichromate of potash, substantially as and for the purpose set forth (4) the method of refining and bleaching a 1 kinds and grades of coarse hair, which consists—First, in bathing and manipulating the same in a bath composed of acid and a chlorine salt, which refines the hair; second, subjecting the refined hair to a bath composed of acids and bichromate of potash; and, third, subjecting the hair thus refined and bleached to the proper shade to a fixing bath, composed of warm water, solution of muriate of tin, bisulphate of soda, and muriatic acid, which sets the color, substantially as set forth; (5) the method of refining and treating hair, which consists in first passing it through a refining bath, composed of an acid and a chlorine salt; then, if desired or necessary, through bleaching and fixing baths, as above described; and, finally, treating the hair so refined to a bath composed of water and ammonia, to remove all of its impurities, substantially as specified; (6) as a new article of commerce and manufacture, hair of fine texture, produced from any grade of coarse hair, either animal or human, by the method of refining, substantially as herein described.'

The court below held that were it not for the latter part of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Philip Morris, Inc. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia
    • 20 Agosto 1986
    ...infringement is upon the patent owner who must show infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688, 9 S.Ct. 428, 430, 32 L.Ed. 803 (1889); Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 758 (Fed.Cir.1984); P. Blaustein, Learned Hand on Patents ......
  • Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 22 Octubre 2014
    ...459 U.S. 375, 390, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983) ; see also Octane Fitness, 134 S.Ct. at 1758 (citing Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688, 9 S.Ct. 428, 32 L.Ed. 803 (1889) ). In fact, other courts only require proof of willfulness by a preponderance of the evidence in similar contexts......
  • Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 22 Octubre 2014
    ...459 U.S. 375, 390, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983); see also Octane Fitness, 134 S.Ct. at 1758 (citing Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688, 9 S.Ct. 428, 32 L.Ed. 803 (1889)). In fact, other courts only require proof of willfulness by a preponderance of the evidence in similar contexts. ......
  • Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 23 Marzo 2015
    ...459 U.S. 375, 390, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983) ; see also Octane Fitness, 134 S.Ct. at 1758 (citing Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688, 9 S.Ct. 428, 32 L.Ed. 803 (1889) ). In fact, other courts only require proof of willfulness by a preponderance of the evidence in similar contexts......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Exceptionally Vague: Attorney Fee Shifting Under the Lanham Act
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Journal of Intellectual Property Law (FC Access) No. 23-1, 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...be used in practice).65. Id. See, e.g., Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 519.66. Octane Fitness, 134 S. Ct. at 1758. See, e.g., Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U.S. 683, 688 (1889).67. 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (2015).68. 62 Trademark Rep. 239.69. Id.70. Id.71. Id. 72. Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1879) (holding th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT