Graff, Washbourne & Dunn v. Webster
Citations
- 195 F. 522
- 115 C.C.A. 432
- 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1414
Syllabus
<p>1. Patents (§ 28*)—Invention^-Design.</p> <p>That each separate element in a patented design was old does not negative invention, which may reside in the manner in which they are as- ' sembled, since it is the design as a whole, and the impression it makes on the eye, which must be considered.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 33; Dec. Dig. § 28.*]</p> <p>2. -Patents (§ 252*)—Infringement—Designs.</p> <p>It is not necessary, to constitute an infringement of a design patent, that the infringing design should be a Chinese copy; but it is sufficient if the similarity is such as would deceive an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 394, 396; Dec. Dig. § 252.*]</p> <p>3. Patents (§ 328*)—Validity and Infringement—Design foe Silver Plate.</p> <p>' The Graff design patents, No. 39,992, for a design for a dish, and No. 40,009, for a detail of a border section of a dish, preferably made of silver, held valid and infringed.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- infringing design need not be a “Chinese copy”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Coxe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Company, Marmax Products Corp., and Morris Shapiro, Doing Business as Great Eastern Housewares CompanySecond Circuit· 1961-09-28· cited 131×
- Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G. Salzman, Inc., Hutzler Mfg. Co., and C. B. Cotton & Co., Inc.Second Circuit· 1962-04-02· cited 72×
- Nat Lewis Purses, Inc. v. Carole Bags, Inc.Second Circuit· 1936-05-11· cited 48×
- Strause Gas Iron Co. v. William M. Crane Co.Second Circuit· 1916-04-11· cited 44×
- Ashley v. Weeks-Numan Co.Second Circuit· 1915-01-12· cited 43×
- Forestek Plating & Mfg. Co. v. Knapp-Monarch Co.Sixth Circuit· 1939-09-18· cited 35×
- Steffens v. SteinerSecond Circuit· 1916-02-15· cited 30×
- American Fabrics Co. v. Richmond Lace WorksSecond Circuit· 1928-02-06· cited 28×
- Whiting Mfg. Co. v. Alvin Silver Co.Second Circuit· 1922-05-08· cited 27×
- Mygatt v. SchafferSecond Circuit· 1914-11-16· cited 24×
- International Silver Co. v. Julie PomerantzSecond Circuit· 1959-10-07· cited 23×
- Krem-Ko Co. v. R. G. Miller & Sons, Inc.Second Circuit· 1934-01-15· cited 21×
- Bliss v. Gotham Industries, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1963-03-21· cited 19×
- Haff v. R. Wallace & Sons Mfg. Co.Second Circuit· 1913-11-11· cited 19×
- Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. v. WeissSecond Circuit· 1920-03-19· cited 16×
- J. R. Wood & Sons, Inc. v. Abelson's, Inc.Third Circuit· 1934-12-18· cited 15×
- W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Worth Featherweight Pen Co.S.D. New York· 1930-07-01· cited 9×
- Battery Patents Corporation v. CoeD.C. Circuit· 1937-09-13· cited 8×
- Bercy Industries, Inc. v. Mechanical Mirror Works, Inc.S.D. New York· 1967-10-02· cited 8×
- In the Matter of the Application of Jacques RoussoCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1955-05-25· cited 7×
Other cases named Graff, Washbourne & Dunn v. Webster
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.