E. Regensburg & Sons v. Juan F. Portuondo Cigar Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 04 April 1905 |
Docket Number | 29. |
Citation | 136 F. 866 |
Parties | E. REGENSBURG & SONS v. JUAN F. PORTUONDO CIGAR MFG. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Briesen & Knauth, for complainant.
C Andrade, Jr., for respondent.
The complainant, a New York corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigars, seeks to restrain the defendant from using a certain kind of band around its cigars, on several grounds:
(1) Because the defendant's band infringes the complainant's patent for a similar device.
(2) Because the defendant's band infringes the complainant's trade-mark, namely, the same band for which the patent was taken out.
(3) Because, in view of the prior use of the complainant's band, the defendant is guilty of unfair competition by the use of its own device.
Both bands are dark brown, differing very little from the color of a cigar wrapper, and the lettering upon both is white. The following figure shows the complainant's band:
(Image Omitted)
And the defendant's band, which differs in shape and lettering is shown upon the following reproduction:
(Image Omitted)
1. The complainant is now the owner, by assignment, of patent No. 715,512, granted to M. Regensburg on December 9, 1902, upon an application filed on March 19th of that year. The subject of the invention is an improvement in 'cigar bands made of paper or like material, one end of which is provided with an adhesive substance, so as to adapt it to be pasted upon the other end of the band. ' The object of the invention is stated to be 'to provide an improved cigar-band of the above-indicated class, which will be so constructed as to protect the cigar-wrapper from contact with the adhesive portion of the band, and to materially reduce the time and labor necessary for applying the band to a cigar. ' The specification describes the band in the following language, and recounts the advantages that may be expected therefrom:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Whiting Milk Co.
...142 F. 727, 729-730 (6th Cir.); Life Savers Corp. v. Curtiss Candy Co., 182 F.2d 4, 5-6 (7th Cir.); E. Regensburg & Sons v. Juan F. Portuondo Cigar Mfg. Co., 136 F. 866, 867 (C.C.E.D.Pa).; A. G. Morse Co. v. Walter M. Lowney Co., 256 F. 935 (D.C.N.D.Ill.); Radio Corp. of America v. Decca Re......
-
Thomas Kerfoot & Co. v. Louis K. Liggett Co.
...Co., 149 U. S. 562, 13 S. Ct. 966, 37 L. Ed. 847; Wrisley Co. v. Iowa Soap Co., 122 F. 796 (C. C. A. 8); E. Regensburg & Sons v. Portuondo Cigar Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 136 F. 866. It has been recognized by the plaintiff. In connection with proceedings by it to register "Vapex" with a green triang......
-
A.G. Morse Co. v. Walter M. Lowney Co.
... ... 727, 66 C.C.A ... 557; Regensburg & Sons v. Portuondo Cigar Mfg. Co ... (C.C.) ... ...
- F. W Webb Mfg. Co. v. J. L. Mott Ironworks