Hansen v. Siegel-Cooper Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1900 |
| Citation | 106 F. 690 |
| Parties | HANSEN v. SIEGEL-COOPER CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
F. P Fish, J. J. Storrow, and Charles Neave, for complainant.
Walter K. Griffin and Edward A. Isaacs, for defendants.
It is possible, though highly improbable, that two persons, neither of whom had even seen or been informed of the other's design might have produced packages as similar as the two before the court. But there is no dispute that the designer of the Van Duzer package had complainant's before him when he undertook to prepare his own. As is invariably the case when these suits come into court, there is an affidavit of the designer of the later package to the effect that his entire effort 'was to individualize our own goods. ' Quite possibly an interested party may so persuade himself of the truth of this statement as to be willing to swear to it without being conscious of any strain. Nevertheless the affidavit remains unpersuasive when the competing packages are produced. The field of design is almost limitless. What can be done in the way of differentiation was well illustrated before the court of appeals in this circuit in Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 91 F. 536, when the original Hunyadi Janos bottles and labels were displayed in connection with the bottles and labels of similar water which the Apollinaris Company were offering in competition. In that case some sufficient reason made the latter company extremely solicitous to 'individualize.' They made an honest effort so to do, and the result was illuminative as to what can be accomplished by such an effort. In the case at bar there are differences, of course,-- there always are; but as one regards the resemblances, which are in such details as are well calculated to strike the eye and be retained in the memory, the conclusion is irresistible that the later designer borrowed them from the earlier, and if he did so it certainly was not for purposes of differentiation. The affidavit in this case is frank enough to say, 'we thought ourselves justified and found it convenient to adopt such of complainant's ideas as to method of packing as, in our opinion, did not conflict with the identification of our goods as being of our own manufacture exclusively. ' There seems to have been a miscalculation as to the amount that could be safely adopted. The trade undoubtedly will not be deceived, but, when we consider...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O. & W. Thum Co. v. Dickinson
... ... following: N. K. Fairbank Co. v. R. W. Bell Manuf'g Co., ... 77 F. 869, 875, 23 C.C.A. 554 (C.C.A. 2), followed in Hansen ... v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 106 F. 690, 691 (C.C.); Helmet Co. v ... Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co., supra; Wotherspoon v. Currie, supra, 5 ... Eng. & Irish ... ...
-
Wolf Bros. & Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.
... ... and good faith in Fairbanks Co. v. Bell Co., 77 F ... 869, 23 C.C.A. 554, National Biscuit Co. v. Baker ... (C.C.) 95 F. 135, and Hansen v. Siegel-Cooper Co ... (C.C.) 106 F. 690 ... That ... defendant's action in the several respects above ... enumerated was not taken ... ...
-
A. Hollander & Son, Inc. v. Philip A. Singer & Bro., Inc.
...It is not, however, the dissimilarities which are the test, but the resemblances. As was said by Judge Lacombe in Hansen v. Siegel-Cooper Company (C. C.) 106 F. 690: 'It is possible, but highly improbable, that two persons, neither of whom had ever seen or been informed of the other's desig......
-
Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. v. Saratoga Carlsbad Corp.
...that the defendants are merely sellers or wholesalers or distributors and not the original bottler or manufacturer. Hansen v. Seigel-Cooper Co. et al., C.C., 106 F. 690; Pro-phy-lac-tic Brush Co. v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., D.C., 11 F.Supp. On the issue of infringement, plaintiff's contentio......