Edward Hilker Mop Co. v. United States Mop Co.

Citations

• 191 F. 613
• 112 C.C.A. 176
• 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4971

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents (§ 328*) — Invention—Self-Wringing Mop.</p> <p>The Hilker patents, No. 744,196, claim 1, and No. 758,753, claim 1, each for a combined mop and wringer, are void for lack of patentable invention in view of the prior art, and especially of patent No. 716,417 to the same patentee.</p> <p>2. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names (§ 75*) — Unfair Competition — What Constitutes.</p> <p>Nothing less than conduct tending to pass off (me man’s business or merchandise as that of another will constitute unfair competition, and similarity of circulars sent by a defendant manufacturer to its agents and prospective agents to those sent by complainant to its agents is not sufficient to constitute unfair competition, where the contents of the circulars were such that they were not likely to he shown to ultimate purchasers of the article.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 86; Dec. Dig. § 75.*]</p> <p>3. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names (§ 70*) — Unfair Competition!</p> <p>The adoption by one manufacturer of the characteristic features of another's product, common to articles of that class, does not of itself amount, to unfair competition.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trade-Marks and Trade-Names, Cent. Dig. § 81; Dec. Dig. § 70.*</p> <p>Unfair competition in use of trade-mark or trade-name, see notes to Scheuer v. Muller, 20 C. C. A. 165; Lare v. Harper & Bros., 30 C. C. A. 376.]</p>