factured by the complainant was, after the adoption of'said name and its application to said knife, extensively known to the trade as the "Light. ning Hay..Knife." Upoldhese facts, it should be heldthatthe complainants have a valid Rsapplied to hay-knives similar to trade-mark in the word those to 'which they have applied it ; 'that the trade-mark is valid, both at comm<m.law and by the act of congress of March 3, 1881; that the word is, Dot merely descriptive of the quality or characteristics of the artiple to which it has been applied; and that they should have a decree for an injunction to restrain' the defendants from violating their trademark in the word, and for an accounting. ' It is also held thllt the complainants have no exclusive right to use the 'words "Weymouth's Patent" as a trade-mark, because they are the which was given to such hay-knives when they were first madA and sold, and the name by which they have become recognized and dealt in by the public; and that after the patent expired all persons had the right to deaHn the artiple by that name, and also to print the name upon the article. These conclusions are but the application offa.miliar law to the facts of the case, and ,it would be quite superfluous to indulge in any extended discussion of trie authorities.' If the case of Manvfacttbring Co. v. 'Marwfacturing Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 99;contains any opinion opposed to the view that the defendants have' tberight to print the words "Weymouth's Patent!' upon ves sold 'by them similar to the patented article,lit.is not acceded to, and is antagonistic to the cases of Fairbanks HElatchf. 337, and Battery Co. v. Electric Co., 23 Fed. Rep. 276. The complainants have done nothing to prejudice their right to protection by printingou their hay-knives, after the patent expired, the words "Weymouth's Patent,gl'anted March 7, 1871, reissued April 20, 1886," there being no evidence tha.tthe patent was not reissued as stated. as this representation could not mislead the public.
F ABItIC Co.
'(Oircuit Oou,rt. N. D. NeuJ York. December 24,1889.)
P"-Tlmft roR INVENTrON-CONSTRUdTION OF CLAIM. Letters patentNo. 804,154, issued August 26, 1884, to Wickwire and another, are fortheproooss of "applying a liquid solution or colnpound "to the rollers overwhich , wire cloth'was passed, for the purpose of drying the paint on the cloth, and pre',ve;iting, it" adhesion to the rollers. The specifications stated that "any liquid solution: or which will adhere to the rollers, and at the saine tilne repel paint; ,jwDnld do, but that a solution of soap in water was fouhd preferable. Held, thatthe"Patent was: for ,the use of some other solution than mere water, as that use of ,was well-I\:nown, 81ld the use pf water for drying the paint, and preventing tts adhesion to theroHers, was no in'friJigement. '
;In Equity., Bill for infringement' of' letters patent. R. H. Duell;farcoInplainants. ' Ha1e,OolJien, &:,}JucKbiJJ, for defendant. '
WJCKWIRE tI. WIRE FABRIC co. WALLACE, J. The process of this patent (No. 304,154, granted to Wickwire and another,August 26, 1884) relates to improvements in the manufacture of painted wire cloth. The specification states that formerly, in order to dry the paint upon the cloth quickly, it was customary to pass it over rollers in a heating chamber, thus drying the paint during the passage of the cloth; but this was disadvantageous, because the paint, before drying, was apt to be taken up by the rollers, thus leaving the cloth imperfectly painted. The improvement in the art of painting the cloth, which is termed a "process," and is the subject of the patent, consists in "applying a liquid solution or compound" to the rollers. The means for applying it are these: "Below each roller is hung, or otherwise supported. a trough containing this liquid· solution or compound, into which the roller dips while rotating, thus coating it with the solution or compound." The specification states that "any liquid solution or compound which ,will adhere to the rollers, and at the same time repel paint," will answer, but a solution of soap in water has been founrl preferable. The claim is as follows: "In the manufacture of painted wire cloth, the process herein described for prevenMng the paint with which the cloth has LJeen treated from adhering to the carrying-roll, consisting in applying to such rolls a paint-repelling compound, as set forth." The defendant employs metal rollers, through which a stream of water is passed to chill their surfaces and harden the constituents of the paint, so as to prevent adhesion; and at times the water of condensation arising from the atmosphere of the room settles upon these rollers sufficiently to assist in preventing the adhesion of the paint. The question in the case is whether this method of treating the painted wire cloth: is an infringement of the patent. The patentees were not the first to llmpIoy similar mechanical means for a cognate use. The English patent of 1879 to Ritchie a method for coating or impregnating felt with resinous material, in ,,:hi()h, after the felt has been coated by passing it between rollers, it passes to cooling cylinders l which are moistened by rotating in water troughs, to prevent the felt, while passing over them, from adhering. Thus, in that patent as well as the patent in suit, a sheet of material coated with resinoid matter is made to pass over a series of rollers, and is prevented from adhering thereto by having the of the rollers moistened through their rotation in troughs. The United States patent of 1880 to Metzler describes' an apparatus for applying glue or size to muslin in rolls, for making window curtains, etc., in which the fabric, after passing a sizing roller, passes to drying drums, having a stream of cold water flowing through them, or having cold water applied to their surfaces, to prevent the size from adhering. Water acts as a paint repellant in all. these instances, by intervening a thin film of non-adhesive material between the rollers and the paint, or the resinous or glutinous coating, of the fabric. Consequently, it would not be invention .10 apply water by the same mechanical means, to prevent the Jlll:int'of from adhering to the rollers which had been used to
18.'pp,ly ,it" fotpreventing' the' resinous· boating of felt, Of ·}jb,rfromadhering. , It follows ul1less the process ofithe pateritiil"..
volvesl3bmething more than the use'i1fsimple water to moiste,nthe roll..
1lrs. and,pre,'ent the adhesiOllofthe'paint, it is desiituteof patentable
!lovelty. "The process consists, according to the language of the claim, iIi appl;ying "a paint-repelling compbund " to- the rollers'. 'This hardly describes'water, and neither thaMetmnor the term "liquid solution"is an apt term' to describe it. Ifthepllioooteeshad contemplated the use of water, there is no reason why,they should not have said so; and, if they haal, it is not improbable that they would not have obtained a patent. The, claim must be construed as specifying the application of 80meother'compound or solution ,thlin water to the rollers. Upon this .con&tl1ootibn of the patent,'the defetHlant does not itlfri'nge;, . The proofs show that for a short time the defeiWfaritemployed in itflfabtory the parat,U$,and,proces8 of the patent, :using oil or water, WIth other liquids, :upon a, SIngle roller, as a paiilt..repellingcompound. 'The infringement ,was 'very inconsiderable, a_nd was 'witbout any profit to tile defendant, or substantial injury to the com plainant, and is not of sufficient consequepce to the basis of '&J Aecree Jor,an accounting or an injunction. It suftices, however, to lead toa ,dismissal of the biU;without costs.
" ", I "
et al. v.
Oourt, N. D. NewYor'k, December 23,1ll89.)
i, The second claim of Stetsoll1s patell.lihas all the partS 0'1 the first, except that' tllerl1 is 119 spring in the detlecting plll<teto release the globe.: ,Held, that it was tic1pated llY, the Ford and Betts patents. " ,; , " ' . 8" ' , lanteJ:]ldi:l!ers from: ,that ,of Stetson's tlrst claim only in tbat the · 'vertical rdd,s the two platell Ina\1e in two parts, 80 that, they can be discllnnectedatll point midway between the two plates; Held an infringement.
bled deVice,s adapted to "tubular lanterns," for detaching the glass globe of alaI/.tern ftom with those whereby the globe is raised and lowered integrallf with the detlllcting plate and perforated, plate, and steadied laterally, has a vertically adjustable detlecting plate, above' thelflobe, carrying a spring attached to it, adapted to hOld or release the globe; connecting rods, which'extend from the deflecting plate to the perforated plate beneath the globe, and unite them rigidly, for the purpose of holdlllg the two plates and the globe integrally together when the globe il raised from the lamp; and gnides,'whioh are rigiuly attached to the perforated plate, and embrace the aides Qt"the frame, for the pUrpose of steadying the plates and globe when raised and'lowEll.'e!l·. Irwin's patent, dateaMay 23. 1871, allows the,globe to be detached by a' sp1!ing attached to the detlecting' plate, but not to be raised above the lamp, anql the plates become separated. Ford's patent', dated JUly 25, 1871. allows'the g16b6 to be raised integrally with the plates above tl;lelamp,bymeans of rods, but:the globe cannot be removed from the frame. Betts/,patent, dated Augl1st26" 1879,ha.s similar guidllSfa1' Jlateral support. Coll,my's patent, dated February 12, 1878, allows the glqbe pe,li'aised,integrally with the 'plates by wirescarried'by the perforated plate and hooking into the detlectiI/-g ,l'!l;Ite.; .lI.lld by unhooking thllwires, the globe can "be removed 'from the frame,but'thetwo' plates become detached from each other. ,Held, that tge,claim of StetaonwaS 'notantic1pated by aliy'of;these patents, and that the lmprovements involved, invention.,