Carter Products v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Decision Date | 10 March 1955 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6954. |
Citation | 130 F. Supp. 557 |
Parties | CARTER PRODUCTS, Inc., Joseph G. Spitzer, and Marvin Small v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Noxzema Chemical Co., Inc., Stalfort Pressure-Pak Corporation, John C. Stalfort & Sons, Inc., and Read Drug & Chemical Company, Inc. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
R. Dorsey Watkins, of Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, Md., George B. Finnegan, William D. Denson and Jerome G. Lee, of Morgan, Finnegan, Durham & Pine, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Harry N. Baetjer and H. Vernon Eney, of Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., Benjamin B. Schneider, Chicago, Ill., Trenton Meredith, Jersey City, N. J., for Colgate-Palmolive Co.
H. Paul Rome and H. Paul Black, Baltimore, Md., for Stalfort Pressure-Pak Corp. and John C. Stalfort & Sons, Inc.
H. Vernon Eney, of Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., for Read Drug & Chemical Co.
This is a suit based upon United States Patent No. 2,655,480, issued October 13, 1953, on application filed November 2, 1949, to Joseph Spitzer, Irving Reich and Norman Fine. The corporate plaintiff, hereinafter called Carter, is the exclusive licensee under the patent which, in the words of the patent itself, "relates to a composition for use in producing a soap or a detergent lather without resorting to any manual or mechanical whipping or agitating operation".
More specifically, it embraces a pressurized self-generating lather composition in a small can with a press-button, outlet valve which Carter manufactures and markets as a shaving preparation under the name "Rise". The patent hereinafter will be referred to as the Spitzer patent.
There are four defendants (a fifth, Noxzema Chemical Co., Inc., having been dismissed before trial), namely, Colgate-Palmolive Company, hereinafter called "Colgate"; Stalfort Pressure-Pak Corporation and John C. Stalfort & Sons, Inc., hereinafter referred to, jointly, as "Stalfort", and Read Drug and Chemical Company, hereinafter referred to as "Read".
The Spitzer patent embraces 21 claims, but only 8 of them are in suit, namely, Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18 and 20, are alleged to be infringed, although all 21 are covered by defendant's counterclaim of invalidity. Colgate admits infringement of these 8 claims by one or the other of its products, known as Rapid-Shave and Barber Shave. Stalfort is charged with infringement of 5 claims, Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10 and 19, by packaging and pressurizing a self-generating shaving lather composition for the Mennen Company, called "Foam Shave", and shipping it to Mennen's customers; Read is charged with infringing by reason of selling as a retailer, Rapid Shave, Barber Shave and Foam Shave. Both Stalfort and Read deny any infringement. All defendants assert the defense of invalidity of the Spitzer patent.
In addition to denying invalidity, plaintiffs claim additional damages from defendant Colgate on the ground that it wrongfully appropriated plaintiffs' trade secrets involved in the composition of "Rise", which two of the plaintiffs, Spitzer and Small, as owners of the patent, developed jointly with the corporate plaintiff, Carter; and plaintiffs also claim that Colgate utilized these trade secrets in developing its competitive products just referred to. The two main questions for determination in the present suit are, therefore: (1) whether the Spitzer patent is valid; and, (2) whether Colgate wrongfully appropriated any trade secrets of Carter relating to "Rise". These questions will be considered in the order just stated.
In considering the question as to the validity of the Spitzer patent, it is essential, first, to understand the state of the shaving preparation art at the time "Rise" first came on the market in April, 1951, with a label bearing the words "Patent Pending" and "Secret Formula".
Prior to this time, lather for shaving had always been made by whipping air into a soap and water solution by using a shaving brush, either with the long-familiar, but now rather obsolete mug, and more recently with tubed shaving cream whipped into a lather on the face by a brush. An adaptation of this principle for the professional barber is the rather modern lather-making machine used in barber shops, where air is mechanically whipped into a soap solution to form a lather by a motorized process. All of these lathers, whether made by brush or by machine, employ ordinary air as the bubble-forming gas.
The other relatively recent and prevalent preparation to facilitate shaving is the so-called "brushless shaving cream". This forms no lather, but is merely spread on the face like cold cream, to provide a hair-softening medium and a lubricant for the razor blade. Brushless shaving creams are relatively inefficient compared with lather. They are less pleasing to use, harder to remove from the razor and the washbowl, and are in vogue primarily because of greater convenience, since no whipping up of lather is required.
Since the composition of the "Rise" patent is not confined to use for shaving, but expressly includes use for "shampooing or other washing or cleansing operations", it is appropriate to quote the following statement from the "Rise" patent as to what the patentees understood to be the state of the prior art in respect to shampooing:
The object of the invention and the composition employed to attain these objects are set forth in great detail in the patent, from which we quote as follows at some length, because of the highly technical character of the subject matter:
* * * * * *
After setting forth a list of 19 examples of soap solutions recommended in preparing the patent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. US Laminating Corp.
...Electric Co. v. Alexander, 2 Cir. 1922, 280 F. 852, cert. denied, 260 U.S. 727, 43 S.Ct. 89, 67 L.Ed. 484; Carter Products v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, D.Md.1955, 130 F. Supp. 557, affirmed, 230 F.2d 855, cert. denied, 1956, 352 U.S. 843, 77 S.Ct. 43, 1 L.Ed.2d 59; Permutit Co. v. Wadham, ......
- Carter Products v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
-
Carter Products, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
...determination and award of damages, profits, interest, fees and costs. History of the Proceedings In May 1955, pursuant to his opinion, 130 F.Supp. 557, Judge Coleman entered a decree in this case: he held that plaintiffs' patent (Spitzer et al., No. 2,655,480, issued October 13, 1953, for ......
-
WR Grace & Co. v. Park Manufacturing Company
...States Laminating Corp., 282 F.Supp. 118, 136-137 (E.D.N.Y.1968), aff'd. 417 F.2d 869 (2nd Cir. 1969); Carter Products, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 130 F.Supp. 557, 566 (D.Md.1955), aff'd. 230 F.2d 855 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 843, 77 S.Ct. 43, 1 L.Ed.2d 59. However, regard......
-
CHAPTER 4 ACQUIRING SEISMIC DATA - AGREEMENTS WITH LAND OR LEASE OWNERS, CONTRACTING FOR SEISMIC DATA OR SERVICES
...[113] Savit 2, supra note 61, at 14-21. [114] Savit 2, supra note 61, at 14-21. See also, Carter Prod., Inc. v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 130 F. Supp. 557 (D. Md.), aff'd, 230 F.2d 855 (4th Cir. 1955). [115] Savit 2, supra note 61, at 14-22. [116] Decker & Stevens, supra note 4, at C-25. See a......
-
CHAPTER 4 CUTTING YOUR PROSPECT DOWN TO SEISMIC: THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF CONTRACTING FOR SEISMIC SERVICES AND DATA
...(July 16, 1990). [98] .Savit 2, supra at 14-21. [99] .Savit 2, supra at 14-21. See also, Carter Products, Inc. v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 130 F.Supp. 557 (D.Md.), aff'd, 230 F.2d 855 (4%gth%g Cir. 1955). [100] .Savit 2, supra at 14-22. [101] .Decker & Stevens, supra at C-25. See also, K&G Oi......