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>