Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Durham Duplex Razor Co.

• Decision Date: 13 June 1912
• Citation: 197 F. 574
• Parties: GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO. v. DURHAM DUPLEX RAZOR CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

197 F. 574

GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO. v. DURHAM DUPLEX RAZOR CO.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

June 13, 1912

James Q. Rice, for the motion,

Robert F. Rogers and Richard V. Lindabury, opposed.

CROSS District Judge.

The complainant has instituted a suit in equity against the defendant, alleging infringement by it of patent No. 775,134 (1904). The patent in suit, which is owned by the complainant, has been sustained by this court and on appeal by the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit. Its validity is not now called in question.

The defendant's razor is alleged to be manufactured pursuant to patent No. 854,841, issued in 1907 to one Prescott. The fact that this later patent was granted in the fact of the Gillette patent is prima facie evidence that it substantially differs from that of Gillette. N. J. Wire Cloth Co. v Buffalo Expanded Metal Co. (C.C.) 131 F. 265, affirmed without opinion 135 F. 1021, 68 C.C.A. 672; Anderson v Collins (C.C.A.) 122 F. 451, 58 C.C.A. 669; St Louis Car-Coupler Co. v. National Malleable Castings Co (C.C.A.) 87 F. 885, 31 C.C.A. 265; Ransome v. Hyatt (C.C.A.) 69 F. 148, 16 C.C.A. 185; Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 14 L.Ed. 683; Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186, 208, 14 Sup.Ct. 310, 38 L.Ed. 121; Boyd v. Janesville Tool Co., 158 U.S. 260, 15 Sup.Ct. 837, 39 L.Ed. 973.

Moreover, the ex parte affidavits are in material respects in direct conflict. The razors of the complainant and defendant as respectively manufactured by them under the above patents, manifestly differ in form, and also, as claimed by the defendant, in principle of operation. Furthermore, the defendant claims that its blade is not only mounted differently, but has inherent rigidity at its cutting edge; that it is not clamped in its holder; that the handle is differently affixed to the holder, and in such manner that it does not come within the purview of the claims of the Gillette patent relating thereto. There are other alleged differences between the devices in question, but it is unnecessary to refer to them. The affidavits, conflicting as they are upon material matters, raise sufficient doubt to preclude the issue of a preliminary injunction.

The power to grant such an injunction should always be exercised with the greatest of care and caution. An application therefor is always addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and as was said by Judge McKennan, in Bailey Wringing Machine Co. v. Adams, Fed. Cas. No. 752:

'Such discretion ought to be exercised only when complainant's title and the defendant's infringement are admitted, or are so clear and palpable that the court can entertain no doubt on the subject. The courts are not bound at this stage of the cause to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed questions of fact, nor exercise this high and dangerous power (if exercised rashly) in doubtful cases before the alleged offender shall have an opportunity of a full and fair hearing.'

See, also, to the same effect, Whippany Mfg. Co. v. United Indurated Fiber Co. (C.C.A. 3d Circuit) 87 F. 215, 30 C.C.A. 615; Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co. (C.C.A.) 56 F. 718, 6 C.C.A. 100; George Ertel Co. v. Stahl (C.C.A.) 65 F. 519, 13 C.C.A. 31; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co. (C.C.) 64 F. 775; Brookfield et al. v. Elmer Glassworks (C.C.) 132 F. 312; Blakey v. Natn'l Mfg. Co., 95 F. 136, 37 C.C.A. 27.

Under the conflicting affidavits presented for consideration, this case is not free from doubt. Moreover, under the testimony the issuance of a preliminary injunction might work an...