General Gaslight Co. v. Matchless Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1904
• Citation: 129 F. 137
• Parties: GENERAL GASLIGHT CO. v. MATCHLESS MFG. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

129 F. 137

GENERAL GASLIGHT CO. v. MATCHLESS MFG. CO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

February 26, 1904

Dallas Boudeman, W. P. Preble, Jr., and Charles W. Culver, for complainant.

Edward C. Davidson, for defendant.

HAZEL District Judge.

This is a bill for an alleged infringement of design patent No 35,481, dated December 24, 1901, issued to Alfred H Humphrey, and by him assigned to the complainant corporation. The specifications state that the invention relates to a design for gas lamps known as 'cluster lights.' The defenses chiefly relied upon are want of novelty and noninfringement. It is not seriously controverted that the design embodies features familiarly known, nearly all of which may in some form be found in pre-existing lamps. The proofs do not disclose the prior use of an ornamental lamp similar in design to that described in the specifications. On the contrary, the evidence establishes that no lamp having the shape configuration, or ornamentation of the lamp design in suit was previously known to the trade. The design patent in question is not for an ornament, pure and simple. The shape and configuration of the lamp also permit its classification as a useful article of manufacture. According to section 4929 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3398), the design must be a new and original invention produced by the industry, genius, effort, and expense of the inventor. Whether the design possesses the characteristics of originality and newness must largely, if not altogether, be determined by the visual impressions resulting from its appearance. Matthews & Willard Mfg. Co. v. American Lamp & Brass Co. (C.C.) 103 F. 634; Pelouze Scale & Mfg Co. v. American Cutlery Co., 102 F. 916, 43 C.C.A. 52; Smith v. Stewart (C.C.) 55 F. 481; Untermeyer v. Freund (C.C.) 37 F. 342. The shape and configuration of the lamp, in its entirety; the collocation of its mechanical features; the arrangement of the cluster lights and mantels; the contour and proportions of the bulbous globe; the two metal bands, with their twisted, plaited, and filigree ornamentation--contribute to the creation of a symmetrical form and pleasing appearance. The defendant contends that the prior art discloses substantially similar designs. It is also asserted that any additional elements or substituted features constituting complainant's patent accomplish an artistic result due solely to an assembling of parts obvious to any skilled designer, and not entitled to the dignity of invention. This contention is entitled to careful consideration. It is quite well settled, upon the authority of Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674, 13 Sup.Ct. 768, 37 L.Ed. 606, that the law which applies to a mechanical patent does not differ materially from that applicable to design patents. Hence originality and the exercise of the inventive faculty must be present in both instances. The mere adaptation of that which was old and familiarly known to new purposes is not invention, nor would the mere aggregation of known parts of other substantially similar designs to produce that under consideration constitute patentability. Perry v. Starrett, 3 B.& A. 485; Simpson v. Davis (C.C.) 12...