General Time Instr. Corp. v. United States Time Corp.

• Decision Date: 15 January 1948
• Docket Number: Docket 20761.,No. 114,114
• Citation: 165 F.2d 853
• Parties: GENERAL TIME INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES TIME CORPORATION.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

165 F.2d 853 (1948)

GENERAL TIME INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES TIME CORPORATION.

No. 114, Docket 20761.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 15, 1948.

W. Brown Morton, of New York City (Rockwell & Bartholow, of New Haven, Conn., Pennie, Edmonds, Morton & Barrows and Raymond B. Canfield, all of New York City, and Richard E. Burn, of LaSalle, Ill., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

John Vaughan Groner, of New York City (Robert B. Whittredge and Fish, Richardson & Neave, all of New York City, Wiggin & Dana, of New Haven, Conn., and C. Hercus Just, of Waterbury, Conn., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Before CHASE, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Circuit Judge.

This is an action for infringement of a design patent and for unfair competition. Plaintiff for many years has manufactured and sold an alarm clock under the trademark "Big Ben." In 1939, it procured, on application of Henry Dreyfuss, a design patent, No. Des. 114,262, "Design for A Clock Casing," with a single claim "for a clock casing, as shown." The patent drawing shows a round clock case seated on a pedestal projecting above a flat rectangular base. The side view reveals that the front and rear of the case are convex, with a diameter almost twice its greatest thickness. Plaintiff sold nearly 3,000,000 clocks which were manufactured in accordance with this design, between 1939, when it was first introduced, and the fall of 1942, when production was all but stopped due to wartime restrictions. Early in 1946, it again marketed these clocks. Throughout the entire period it has extensively advertised this model. Plaintiff's commercial product shows some variations from the design, notably the addition of a small auxiliary alarm-set circle below the numeral "12" and its trade names "Big Ben" and "Westclox" conspicuously displayed over the numeral "6."

Defendant's accused clocks, in the outline of their casing, are almost identical in over-all appearance with plaintiff's commercial product, both on a front and a side view. There are, however, certain marked differences of detail and, when the base is considered, of design. Thus defendant has entirely eliminated the pedestal, and instead its clock nestles directly upon its base. So, too, there are differences in the color schemes, and the make-up of the dial, with no alarm-set circle, but instead a third (red) hand for an alarm. And it carries its trade name "Waterbury" — until 1944, it was the well-known Waterbury Clock Company, formed in 1857 — on the face of the clock, and its monogram plainly stamped on the back of the case. Defendant first marketed its particular clock at the end of the war. The district court concluded that the design in question was invalid and void for lack of invention, and that defendant was not guilty of unfair competition. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed. On appeal, plaintiff challenges the soundness of both these conclusions.

Judge Hincks, in his Finding No. 12, has ably analyzed the prior art. "Defendant's 1893 Duke watch has a case which is in no respect distinguishable" from that of plaintiff. So, too, viewed from the front, "defendant's Major Bowes clock, plaintiff's Lunar, Miller's spherical Model 4093 and his hemispherical Model 4092 give much the same effect." Again, "the Lux `Marlboro' clocks except for some corrugations are similar." Moreover, as he points out, the base of plaintiff's clock was not new and in fact was not unlike that shown by the Miller Models 4738 and 4092. Clearly, then, the prior art shows all the elements that are combined in the patent before us.

It is well settled that a design patent must be the product of invention if it is to be valid. Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. Jay-Day Frocks, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 715; In re Griffith, Cust. & Pat.App., 86 F.2d 405. It will not suffice merely to show that the design is novel, ornamental, or pleasing in appearance. Gold Seal Importers v. Morris White Fashions, 2 Cir., 124 F.2d 141. It must reveal a greater skill than that exercised by the ordinary designer who is chargeable with knowledge of the prior art. Zangerle & Peterson Co. v. Venice Furniture Novelty Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 133 F.2d 266; In re Eppinger, Cust. & Pat.App., 94 F.2d 401. In short, the test is whether the design involved "a step beyond the prior art requiring what is termed `inventive genius.'" A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Shemitz, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 98, 99. So measured, plaintiff's patent must fail. Here there is no inventive skill. No more is shown than the modification and combination of existing clock designs to produce the one at issue. The changes are too slight to disclose the requisite originality and invention necessary to sustain a patent. Knapp v. Will & Baumer Co., 2 Cir., 273 F. 380. This is the talent of the adapter, rather than the art of the inventor. The patent was therefore properly held invalid.

The copying of an unpatented design does not in itself constitute unfair competition. Zangerle & Peterson Co. v. Venice Furniture Novelty Mfg. Co., supra; A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Shemitz, supra; Airolite Co. v. Fiedler, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 496, certiorari denied 326 U.S. 726, 66 S.Ct. 32, 90 L.Ed. 431; Swanson Mfg. Co. v. FeinbergHenry Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 500. Here there is no evidence that defendant has attempted to "palm off" its product as that of the plaintiff. Indeed, plaintiff does not even contend such was the case. Thus, in order for it to be protected, plaintiff must establish that its design had acquired a secondary meaning and that the sale of defendant's clock would be likely to produce confusion. See Lucien Lelong, Inc. v. Lander Co., 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 395, and cases therein cited. Failing this, plaintiff cannot prevail. It is not disputed that nearly 3,000,000 clocks of the design at issue had been sold up to the fall of 1942, nor is it contested that from 1939 through 1946 approximately $2,000,000 had been spent advertising this clock. This measures plaintiff's effort to establish a secondary meaning, but does not determine its success. As we have seen, there was much prior art that had essential features similar to plaintiff's design. Clearly the task of establishing a secondary meaning for its variation of familiar designs was a difficult one. Large expenditures for advertising do not compel a conclusion that the task has been accomplished. Here there is no affirmative finding that secondary meaning had been established, and "the absence of an affirmative finding for the plaintiff is adequate basis for the judgment." Lucien Lelong, Inc. v. Lander Co., supra, 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 395, 397.

So, too, the finding as to confusion is against the plaintiff. As Judge Hincks says: "And on the whole the evidence does not warrant an inference of deception or confusion." Even if secondary meaning had been established, plaintiff could not have prevailed unless probable confusion would result from defendant's actions. Thus the plaintiff failed in its essential proof on both scores. Our examination of the evidence of record suggests no error in Judge Hincks' findings, and his conclusion seems appropriate. In fact plaintiff is relying upon what must have been a fairly long memory (during wartime) in its customers of a clock which, as we have seen, involved only an adaptation of old designs.

Affirmed.

FRANK, Circuit Judge (dissenting in part).

I do not agree with my colleagues as to the unfair competition aspect of this case. My reasons follow.

1. I happen to think that the judgemade trade-name doctrines should be reevaluated in the light of competent research showing their practical social consequences on consumers,¹ and that, until then, the courts should not extend those doctrines to foster expanded trade-name monopolies.² But I also think that judicial attitudes, for or against the extension of those doctrines, should not now affect judgment in a case, like this, which presents no doctrinal novelties.

2. Here there were two conventional but crucial issues: (a) Did plaintiff establish a secondary meaning? (b) If so, did defendant's conduct create a likelihood of confusion? Yet on neither of these issues did the trial judge make a finding.

My colleagues seek to supply the first finding by citing Lucien Lelong, Inc. v. Lander Co., 2...