Reliance Novelty Co. v. Dworzek
| Decision Date | 17 May 1897 |
| Citation | 80 F. 902 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | RELIANCE NOVELTY CO. v. DWORZEK et al. |
John L Boone, for complainant.
Isaac Frohman, for defendants.
This case comes up on an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted the complainant pendente lite. The bill charges the infringement of letters patent No 26,684, issued to Benny J. Wertheimer on February 23, 1897 under section 4929, Rev. St., for a design upon the cases of coin-controlled machines, generally known as 'nickel in the slot machines,' which, in the case at bar, are of the kind commonly known as 'card-playing slot machines.'
Several objections are made by the defendants to the application for a preliminary injunction. It is claimed (1) that the defendant's design is different and does not infringe (2) that complainant's design does not disclose originality and the exercise of the inventive faculty, it being claimed, in this connection, that complainant's patented design case is substantially the same in form and general appearance as the case of the Nafew-Goldberg Manufacturing Company; and (3) that it has no element of utility, but is used on a gambling device.
If the last ground be deemed to be supported by the proofs, it will be unnecessary to consider the other grounds. The design covered by complainant's patent is placed on a case, with a glass front, containing the coin-controlled machine referred to. This machine is composed of a mechanism, chief among which is a cylinder, to which playing cards of convenient size are attached. Upon dropping a five-cent nickel coin in the slot fixed in the front of the case, and pressing the push bar, also fixed in the front of the case, the cylinder is caused to spring and revolve with some rapidity, carrying the cards on the cylinder around with it. The losses or winnings of the player are determined by the combinations formed by the cards which ultimately rest face upright in the case. This brief description of these coin-controlled, card-playing machines, upon which complainant's design is placed, will be sufficient to show the nature and purpose to which they are put. The machines are used principally in saloons, cigar stands, and other such places of resort by the frequenters and visitors thereto. The winnings of the successful player consist generally in cigars or drinks. The complainant claims, however, that these coin-controlled, card-playing machines, inclosed by its design case, may be put to other uses, among...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v. Berger
... ... The letters were ... granted November 8, 1898, to the Mills Novelty Company, ... assignee of the inventor. While that company was the owner, ... the only practical ... Co. v. Lloyd (C.C.) 40 F. 89, 5 L.R.A. 784; Novelty ... Co. v. Dworzek (C.C.) 80 F. 902; Schultze v. Holtz ... (C.C.) 82 F. 448; Rickard v. Du Bon, 43 C.C.A ... 360, ... ...
-
Egbert v. Greenberg
...publication serves a useful purpose entirely apart from that for which defendants aver it is exclusively intended. The decision in Novelty Co. v. Dworzek was, therefore, upon state of facts somewhat different from those involved in the present case. In the case of Association v. Gocher (C.C......
- Corbett v. Purdy
-
Reliance Novelty Co. v. Dwortzek
...John L. Boone, for appellant. Isaac Frohman, for appellees. Dismissed, pursuant to the twenty-third rule, for failure to print record. See 80 F. 902. ...