The Fair v. Dover Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 October 1908 |
| Docket Number | 1,445. |
| Citation | 166 F. 117 |
| Parties | THE FAIR v. DOVER MFG. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Walter H. Chamberlin, for appellant.
Morse Ives, for appellee.
Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellee is owner of patent No. 649,912, issued May 22, 1900, to one Clark for improvements in sadirons; and controls and directs the making, and endeavors to control the marketing, of the patented product. To carry out its endeavor, appellee has always refused to make absolute and unconditional sales of its sadirons, and has put them in the hands of dealers only on the condition that they should be sold at retail by such dealers, their agents, and their successors in interest, to intending users at uniform prices prescribed by appellee. In addition to this limitation of the right of sale imposed upon dealers by appellee in its direct intercourse with them appellee placed upon the box in which each set of sadirons was handled a printed notice to the effect that restrictions as to minimum prices had been made by appellee, that a violation of the restrictions would be treated as an infringement of the patent, and that if any dealer into whose hands the sadirons should come did not know the price he should inquire of appellee.
Appellant is a retail merchandising corporation. On this appeal it is complaining of a decree that enjoins it from advertising and selling the sadirons of appellee's patent at cut prices.
The right of an owner of a patent to reserve to himself as a part of his monopoly the control of the price at which dealers may retail the patented product to users was upheld by us in the case of Victor Talking Machine Co. v. The Fair, 123 F. 424, 61 C.C.A. 58. Similar views were also expressed in Fuller v. Berger, 120 F. 274, 56 C.C.A. 588, 65 L.R.A. 381, Rubber Tire Co. v. Milwaukee Rubber Works, 154 F. 358, 83 C.C.A. 336, and Indiana Mfg Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 154 F. 365, 83 C.C.A. 343.
Appellant urges that the doctrine of those cases is not applicable here, because appellee's printed notice does not definitely point out what part of the monopoly has been reserved. And counsel vividly pictures the pitfalls in which innocent dealers might be entrapped if such a printed notice were held to be sufficient. But the record explicitly establishes that appellant, before it began to deal in this patented product, had full knowledge of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Olmsted
... ... Henry v. Dick, 224 U.S. 1, ... 32 Sup.Ct. 364, 56 L.Ed. 645, Victor Co. v. The ... Fair, 123 F. 424, 61 C.C.A. 58, and numerous cases ... collated by appellant, [3] with none to the ... v. Durham Duplex ... Razor Co. (D.C.) 197 F. 575; Lovell-McConnell Mfg. Co. v ... Automobile S. Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 193 F. 658, 662; Whippany Mfg ... Co. v. United ... National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70, 22 ... Sup.Ct. 747, 46 L.Ed. 1058; The Fair v. Dover Mfg. Co., 166 ... F. 117, 92 C.C.A. 43; N. J. Patents Co. v. Schaeffer (C.C.) ... 159 F. 181; ... ...
-
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Standard Brewery
... ... Lowe, 111 F. 1005, 49 C.C.A. 671; Victor Talking ... Machine Co. v. The Fair, 123 F. 424, 61 C.C.A. 58; ... Brodrick Copygraph Co. v. Mayhew (C.C.) 131 F. 92; ... Rupp & ... v. Milwaukee Rubber Works Co., ... 154 F. 358, 83 C.C.A. 336; Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case ... Threshing Machine Co., 154 F. 365, 83 C.C.A. 343; ... The Fair v. Dover ... ...
-
Automatic Pencil Sharpener Co. v. Goldsmith Bros.
... ... Lowe, 111 F. 1005, 49 ... C.C.A. 671; Victor Talking Machine Company v. The ... Fair, 123 F. 424, 61 C.C.A. 58; The Fair v. Dover ... Manufacturing Company, 166 F. 117, 92 C.C.A. 43 ... ...