·PAINE V. SNOWDEN.
thirik, that in accordance with such counsel arid advice a spurious article has been sold by some of delfmdant's customers, in the manner last described, and that complainant has been thereby damaged to some extent, and that the public has been deceived. Under these circumstances I think the complainant is entitled to au injunction restraining the defendant from 'selling a spurious article of bitters as and for Hostetter's Bitters. Customers of defendant, who have thus been advised and induced to use genuine bottles and labels in the manner above mentioned, are clearly guilty of a wrongful act which a court of equity will enjoin; and a person who counsels and advises another to perpetrate a fraud, and who also furnishes him the means of consummating the same, is himself a wrong-doer, and, as such, is liable for the injury inflicted. Societl Anonyme, etc., v. Western D1J3tilling Co., 42 Fed. I.,ep. 96. The defendant cannot shield itself from an injunction by the plea that it has not itself sold a spurious article in a false dress. The fact that it has advised its customers to perpetrate a fraud of that description, and that it has furnished them the spurious article, and that some of its customers have probably acted on the suggestion, is sufficient to render them liable to an injunction. A restraining order will be awarded at defendant's cost.
(Oircllit Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvan·ia.
April 20, 18\l1.)
P ATE lilTS FOR INVENTION- PATENTABILITYComplainant's patent was for a design for bow-backed chair consisting in having the upper portion of the bow covered with a piece of material conforming to its shape at the top and leaving the rounds between the lower edge of the piece and the seat exposed. Held, in view of a prior patent showing a chair having the top of the back formed of a wood strip of some breadth and rounds extending between it and the seat, the design did not possess patentable novelty.
In Equity. Bill by Henry H. Paine to enjoin one Snowden from continuing an alleged infringement of design patent No. 13,405, for backs for chairs, November 14, 1882. Complainant's claims were: "(1) The improved design for common round, bow-back chairs, consisting in the upper part of the bow and rounds provided with a sheet of suitable material, as wood, bent to conform to the curvature of said bow-back and rounds, leaving the rounds between said sheet and seat exposed, substantially as and for the purpose specified. (2) The improved design for common round, bow-back chairs, consisting in the upper part of the Low and rounds provided with perforated wooden plates or sheets, substantially as shown and described. (8) The improved design for chairs, which consIsts in the seatframe with perforated wood seat and the back with a round bow, and with a perforated wooden plate or sheet secured to said bow near its top, subtReported by Mark Wilks Collet, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
stantiallyas shown. (4) The improved design for chair bac)\s, which con!lists of the round bow. A, rounds, B. curved perforated back piece, E. secured to said bow and'rounds by ornamental nails, F. G. substantially as shown."
The illustration of complainapt's design showed a bow-back chair having a thin ornamental flexible back sheet or plate, cut, bent and given the curvature to fit the bow-back chair and leaving a space between it and the ,seat in which the rungs were exposed. The defendant put in patent: J. H. Belter, No. 19,405, February 23, 1858; Michael Ohmer, No. 179,721, July 11, 1876; George Gardner, Feb,ruary 24, 1880, reissue No. 9,094., The patent to Ohmer (a mechanical patent) showed a chair having the top of the back formed of a broad strip having the bottom ,cut into somewhat similar form piece in,the design and having rungs extendwith the ing between it and the chair-seat. Horace Pettitt, for complainMlt. Hector T. Fenton, for respondent.
BUTLER, J. We cannot sustain the complainant's patent. In view of the prior state of the art his" design for chair-backs" does not in our estimation show patentable novelty. In appearance, or effect upon the eye, (which alone is involved) the" design" is scarcely distinguishable from Ohmer's chair-backs. The similarity seems greater than that between Gorham & Co. 's "design for spoon and fork handles" and White's involved in the suit of Gorham v. lVh·ite, 14 Wall. 511,-where the court found nothing to distinguish the one from the other. If the similarity was less, however, we would have to hold that in view of the old chairbacks shown by the record, including those of Ohmer, the complainant's design shows no invention. A further dis(:ussion of the subject is deemed unnecessary. For the reasons stated the bill must be dismissed.
(Ci'I'Cuit Court, N. D. New York.
May 11, 1891.)
Letters patent issued May 9, 1876, to Oscar Boehme, for improvement in the manufacture of balls aud of yarn, consisting in the use of a funnel-shaped tube through which the yarn is drawn, so that it comes out of the small end in a compressed condition, ready to be bound and cut" are void for want of patentable novelty.
In Equity. Hey & Wilkinson, for complainant. F'-red. F. Church, for defendants. COXE, J. This is an action in equity for the infringement of letters patent granted to Oscar Boehme, May 9, 1876, for an improvement in