Charles Blum Advertising Corporation v. L. & C. MAYERS CO.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 10067.,10067. |
| Citation | 25 F. Supp. 934 |
| Parties | CHARLES BLUM ADVERTISING CORPORATION v. L. & C. MAYERS CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Arthur E. Paige and Frank E. Paige, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Julius C. Baylinson, of Philadelphia, Pa., and A. C. Nolte and James N. Catlow, both of New York City, for defendant.
This motion is brought under Rule 56 of the new Rules of Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. They are meant to simplify and shorten legal controversies by substituting a new method of procedure for those formerly in use.
This is a Bill in Equity of the type familiar to the Patent Bar. All the controversies evoked by it can be, so far as this Court is concerned, disposed of finally at a Trial Hearing. Any Bill under the old Rules of Procedure was subject to a motion to dismiss. Equity Rule 29, 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723, relates to this. The procedure before that was to demur. The then new Equity Rule gave to defendant the option of a motion to dismiss or of raising the same question by way of Answer. Demurrers and Pleas were "abolished". Thereafter these words were lost to the literature of law and the words dismiss and answer came into vogue. Whether Clause (d) of Rule 56 enlarges the effect of the old Rule to dismiss is yet to be learned. Admittedly the Bill in this case avers a cause of action in Equity. Consequently it is not open to successful attack by a demurrer under the oldest practice, by a motion to dismiss under Rule 29 of the New Equity Rules, nor we assume by a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the New Rules of Procedure.
The defendant however addressed interrogatories to the plaintiff who made answers thereto. The position of the defendant is that the answers to these interrogatories became incorporated with the Bill, and the Bill as thus in effect amended, discloses no cause of action. The Bill rests upon a Patent issued to the predecessor of the plaintiff. It is for an advertising order sheet so made that the advertising part may be separated by the prospective purchaser, from the order sheet, and the latter folded in such a way as to form an envelope for mailing, addressed to the seller, containing the order, and so folded as to form a pocket in which currency or a check can be placed.
Further utility is claimed in economy in the use of dies in cutting out the device.
The defendant put out an advertising pamphlet attached separately to an order sheet which was designed to be so folded as to form a self addressed envelope and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PERFECT TAILBOARDS, PAT. v. Biltwell Auto Body Co.
... ... Corona Cord Tire Company v. Dovan Chemical Corporation", 276 U.S. 358, 48 S.Ct. 380, 72 L.Ed. 610 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Meikle v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co.
...Prismo Holding Corp., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 965; Clair et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C., 34 F.Supp. 559; Charles Blum Advertising Co. v. L. & C. Mayers Co., Inc., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 934; Van Wormer v. Champion Paper & Fibre Co., D.C., 28 F. Supp. Where, however, as in the present case, the fac......
-
Murphy v. Warner Bros. Pictures
...summary judgment should have been denied. Gravenhorst v. Zimmerman, 236 N.Y. 22, 139 N.E. 766, 27 A.L.R. 1465; Charles Blum Adv. Co. v. L. & C. Mayers Co., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 934; Refractolite Corp. v. Prismo Holding Corp., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 965. Portions of the contract are set out in the It ......
-
Van Wormer v. Champion Paper & Fibre Co.
...v. Prismo Holding Corporation et al., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 965, 40 U.S.P.Q., page 35; Charles Blum Advertising Corporation v. L. & C. Mayers Company, Inc., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 934, 40 U.S.P.Q., page 64. In the Refractolite case Judge Coxe says: "The issues involve the validity and alleged infringe......