Jepco Corp. v. Greene
| Decision Date | 06 March 1959 |
| Citation | 171 F. Supp. 66 |
| Parties | JEPCO CORP., Plaintiff, v. Michael A. GREENE, Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc., and Irene Greene, Defendants. FASHION DEMONSTRATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. JEPCO CORPORATION and Erwin Jackman, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Harry Price, New York City, for Jepco Corp.
Charles Sonnenreich, New York City, for Michael A. Greene, Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc., and Fashion Demonstrations, Inc.
This decision is dispositive of Motions 116 and 18 on the Motion Calendar of February 19, 1959.
On September 25, 1956, Design Patents 178833 and 178834 were issued to Irene Greene. On January 2, 1958, Irene Greene assigned these design patents to Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc. On January 9, 1958, Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc. assigned said two design patents and another (Design Patent 181792, issued December 24, 1957) to Fashion Demonstrations, Inc. On January 22, 1958, the assignment of Design Patents 178833 and 178834 by Irene Greene to Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc., dated January 2, 1958, as aforesaid, was recorded in the United States Patent Office.
On December 30, 1958, Fashion Demonstrations, Inc. filed a complaint in this court against Jepco Corporation and Erwin Jackman for infringement of Design Patents 178833 and 178834 and for unfair competition, which action received Index No. 141-208.
On January 5, 1959, Jepco Corporation filed a complaint in this court against Michael A. Greene, Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc., Irene Greene and Nancy Richbourg, which action received Index No. 141-241.
On January 6, 1959, Jepco Corporation amended its complaint in 141-241 by dropping the defendant Nancy Richbourg. It also sought a declaratory judgment that Design Patents 178833 and 178834 were invalid and not infringed, an injunction restraining the defendants therein named from continuing certain acts alleged to be to the plaintiff's detriment, and for other relief.
On January 9, 1959, the United States Marshal served the defendant Jepco Corporation in 141-208.
On January 28, 1959, the assignment of January 9, 1958 by Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc. to Fashion Demonstrations, Inc. was received by the United States Patent Office for filing.
On February 6, 1959, the United States Marshal served Michael A. Greene and Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc. in 141-241.
On February 19, 1959, there came on for argument two motions, to wit, (1) a motion by defendants Michael A. Greene and Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc. "for an order dismissing the amended complaint in 141-241 with costs and counsel fees pursuant to Rules 12 and 17, upon the grounds that there has been a failure to join the indispensable party Fashion Demonstrations, Inc. who owns the patents in suit; and to dismiss the cause of action against the defendants for unfair competition on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction over the same, the parties all being residents of the City and State of New York * * *" (Motion No. 18), and (2) a motion by Jepco Corporation "for an order dismissing the complaint in 141-208 with costs and counsel fees pursuant to Rules 12 and 17, upon the grounds that there has been a failure to join the indispensable parties who actually own and control the patents in suit and since the suit is not being prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest and for the further reason that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted * * *" (Motion No. 116).
Jepco Corporation's motion (No. 116) to dismiss Fashion Demonstrations, Inc.'s complaint in 141-208 for "failure to join the indispensable parties who actually own and control the patents in suit" is assumed by the court as it is by their attorney in his brief to refer to Michael A. Greene, Jane Richard Sportswear, Inc. and Irene Greene. When Fashion Demonstrations, Inc. filed its complaint against Jepco Corporation and Erwin Jackman (who has not apparently been served in this suit) it owned the patents in suit by assignment thereof to it on January 9, 1958 although it did not offer that assignment for recording in the Patent Office until almost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott & Fetzer Co. v. McCarty
...enjoined or dismissed. United Fruit Company v. Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, 282 F.Supp. 338 (D.Mass.1968); Jepco Corp. v. Greene, 171 F.Supp. 66 (S.D. N.Y.1959). However, cross-motions in this action have made several alternatives available to assure that only one court will consid......
-
Gardner v. Gardner, 79
...Federal courts have sometimes dismissed the second claim, U. S. v. Eastport S. S. Corp., 255 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1958); Jepco Corp. v. Greene, 171 F.Supp. 66 (D.C.N.Y.1959); E. J. Korvette Co. v. Parker Pen Co., 17 F.R.D. 267 (D.C.N.Y.1955); and, in other cases, simply stayed it, Semmes Motor......
-
Deering Milliken, Inc. v. KORATRON COMPANY, INC.
...counterclaim in the California action. See, e. g., National Equipment-Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler, supra 287 F.2d at 45; Jepco Corp. v. Greene, 171 F.Supp. 66 (S.D.N.Y.1959). Further prosecution of this suit would then result only in piecemeal litigation of claims which could have been effective......
-
Donnkenny, Inc. v. Nadler, 81 Civ. 6075(MP).
...by amendment to the Answer therein. E. J. Korvette Co., Inc. v. The Parker Pen Company, 17 F.R.D. 267 (S.D.N. Y.1955); Jepco Corp. v. Greene, 171 F.Supp. 66 (S.D.N.Y.1959). Such amendment, of course, lies wholly in the discretion of the Virginia Court. Rule 13(f) The identity of the facts a......