Maytag Co. v. Meadows Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1929
• Docket Number: No. 3999,4170.,3999
• Parties: MAYTAG CO. v. MEADOWS MFG. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

35 F.2d 403 (1929)

MAYTAG CO. v. MEADOWS MFG. CO.

Nos. 3999, 4170.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 29, 1929.

Rehearing Denied November 27, 1929.

Wallace R. Lane and Ralph M. Snyder, both of Chicago, Ill., William L. Patton, of Springfield, Ill., and Henry Russell Platt, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Hal M. Stone, of Bloomington, Ill. (Chalmer C. Taylor, of Bloomington, Ill., on the brief), for appellee.

Before EVANS and PAGE, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

LINDLEY, District Judge.

These two appeals grow out of the same subject-matter, and were presented together in this court. For convenience' sake they are disposed of in one opinion.

In No. 4170 appellant on November 11, 1926, filed its bill of complaint for injunction and damages in the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois charging that the appellee has copied both the essential and nonessential features of its unpatented combined Maytag electric power washing and wringing machine, so that purchasing parties do not distinguish appellee's machine from that of appellant; that appellee has palmed off its machine as that of appellant, wrongfully appropriated the latter's advertising, and wrongfully interfered with its dealers and salesmen. Appellee answered, denying the wrongs complained of, set forth in its answer allegations of unfair competition upon the part of appellant, and prayed an injunction against appellant as affirmative relief. The District Court found the issues for the appellee upon both the bill and the counterclaim.

Both companies have been in business for more than 25 years, manufacturing articles other than washing machines and beginning to make power washing machines about 18 years ago. As the years passed, various improvements were made in the machines of each of the parties. About 1917 appellant and appellee, with certain other companies, in settlement of their disputes as to wringer patents, entered into an agreement whereby the patents were thereafter jointly owned and royalties thereon paid to one of the officials of the appellee as trustee for the interested parties. Appellee has for many years placed upon its product a distinctive registered trade-mark consisting of the word "Meadows" with a scroll underneath, and appellant has placed upon its product a trade-name "Maytag" with a scroll underneath. Appellant began to produce its present washer in 1922. The design proved to be of utilitarian value, and the manufacture and sale of the machine have rapidly grown. In 1925 appellee designed, and early the following year began the manufacture and sale of, the washer complained of.

Each of the machines consists of a rectangularly shaped tub, sitting upon four legs, one of which is the power leg, through which power is transmitted from the motor through the gearing placed on framework below the tub, to the wringer, which is hung upon the power leg above the tub, and the gyratator or agitator placed within the tub for the purpose of washing. The essential features of the combination include the wringer, tub, motor, gearing, transmission of power from the gearing to the wringer, and gyratator, the four legs of the tub, an outlet for the water, and a top substantially water tight.

In the unpatented combination appellant has no monopoly and to reproductions thereof no complaint, unless in copying the same appellee has reproduced, not only the essential, but also the nonessential, features of the machine to the extent that the ordinary purchaser is confused and deceived by the result to the extent that he mistakes appellee's machines for appellant's. Pope Automatic, etc., Co. v. McCrum-Howell Co. (C. C. A.) 191 F. 979. There the court held that a manufacturer of an unpatented mechanical device, who has selected the most suitable material, and has adopted the most simple, efficient, and economical form of construction in which the combination can probably be embodied, with nothing for embellishment or distinction except a name plate, cannot charge a competitor with unfair competition, because for the same utilitarian reasons he uses the same construction in all respects except as to the name plate, which he makes distinctive.

In Marvel Co. v. Pearl (C. C. A.) 133 F. 160, 161, the court said:

"In the absence of protection by patent, no person can monopolize or appropriate to the exclusion of others elements of mechanical construction which are essential to the successful practical operation of a manufacture, or which primarily serve to promote its efficiency for the purpose to which it is devoted. Unfair competition is not established by proof of similarity in form, dimensions, or general appearance alone."

The differences between the two machines are easily discernible. Appellee's machine has placed prominently upon the side of the tub a shield as long as the word "Meadows" and almost as wide as the same, and across the shield the registered trade-mark "Meadows." Appellant's tub is similarly prominently marked with the trade-name "Maytag" without any shield. Appellee's tub has a flat bottom, except where the bottom joins the sides, where it is slightly rounded. Appellant's tub has a hopper shaped bottom, the lower extremity of which is saucer shaped. Into this fits appellant's aluminum saucer shaped gyratator, bearing four fins. On the flat bottom of appellee's tub fits the approximately flat bottom "agitator" of appellee, on which are six fins. This agitator is of bakelite, a nonmetallic substance. Upon its gyratator and the complementary bottom of its tub appellant has a patent. Appellant's tub has an outlet of rubber hose, rather noticeable because of its prominence, as it is looped up over the edge of the tub from the bottom. Appellee's tub has a short metallic outlet at the bottom of the tub. The fins of appellant's gyratator curve upward at the outer edge; those of appellee's agitator curve downward. Appellee claims advantage in this fact because of the absence of upward protrusions upon the fins which might engage the clothes and injure the same. Appellee's agitator is black; that of appellant is bright aluminum. Appellant's gear case contains one gear wheel driven by a cast-iron worm, and from the gear wheel one shaft operates both the gyratator and the wringer. Appellee's gearing consists of a worm and three gear wheels with two shafts, one to operate the wringer and one the agitator. The gear cases are different in appearance. The power leg of appellant's machine is so much smaller than that of appellee that the difference is obvious to the most casual observer. In appellant's machine the wringer gear fits down over the power shaft, while in appellee's the wringer gear fits down within the power leg. The two wringers are unlike in appearance, that of appellant bearing upon its top the name "Maytag," that of appellee the registered trade-mark "Meadows," and their methods of release of tension differ widely. The difference in appearance of the tops of the wringers is marked. The general appearance of the two machines is far from identical. Upon appellant's machine the power leg is placed upon the left-hand side; upon appellee's machine upon the right-hand side. The motor of appellant's machine is placed upon a support running horizontally across the framework between the legs; that of appellee upon a support running diagonally across the framework. Appellant's tub is of aluminum and appellee's of pressed steel. At the top of the tub of each of the parties is an aluminum rim; that of appellant is much the greater width. The lid of appellant's machine bears a coat of arms. Between it and appellee's shield placed upon the side of appellee's machine and upon the top of the tub the court can see no ground for confusion. It is apparent, therefore, that even as to essential features appellee has not strictly copied appellant's machine. It has varied the shape and appearance of the tub, wringer, power leg, gear box, and the vent, and placed a distinctive registered trade-mark upon the side and top of its machine.

Both machines are painted the same color, a light gray, and both the tubs are rectangular in shape, although their bottoms are different. The question arises, therefore, as to whether appellee committed a wrong in adopting the rectangular shape of the tub and the same color of paint.

Experience in the art has demonstrated that the particular shape of both appellant's and appellee's tub is the most utilitarian and efficient yet devised. Without discussing the evidence in this respect in detail, the conclusion is well justified that a rectangularly shaped tub is most desirable. To change the appearance of the tub appellant might add superfluous and unsightly material at the expense of additional cost and desirability of product. To have placed upon appellee's tub a round cover and opening would have interfered with the appearance of the tub and likewise with the efficient co-operation of the wringer. As this court has said:

"Development in a useful art is ordinarily toward effectiveness of operation and simplicity of form. Carriages, bicycles, automobiles, and many other things from diversity have approached uniformity through the utilitarian impulse. If one manufacturer should make an advance in effectiveness of operation, or in simplicity of form, or in utility of color; and if that advance did not entitle him to a monopoly by means of a machine or a process or a product or a design patent; and if by means of unfair trade suits he could shut out other manufacturers who plainly intended to share in the benefits of the unpatented utilities and in the trade that had been built up thereon, but who used on their products conspicuous name-plates, containing unmistakably distinct tradenames, trade-marks, and names and addresses of makers, and in relation to whose products no instance of deception had occurred — he would be given gratuitously a monopoly more effective than...