I. B.ulE-Po TIPa. . Design patent No. 2O,U1, Issued September 23, 1890, to Charles W. Boman for a pen tip, consisting of two cyllnden of d11ferent sizes, with a beveled connection between them, and a bead around the smaller one near the bevel, and an abrupt flare at the end of It, Is void for want of invention. B. SAME-PEN CAllES. Design patent No. 20,158, Issued to Charles W. Bomftn for a pen case, consisting substantially of the handle of his patent No. 20,156, made plain Instead of milled, and the pen tip of b1a patent No. 20,157, brought together, Is Toid for want of Invention.
In Equity. Suit by the Eagle Pencil Company against the Amer· ican Lead Pencil Company for infringement of certain design patents. Bill dismissed. Samuel A. Duncan and Robert H. Duncan, for plainti.1t Edmund Wetmore, for defendant. WHEELER, District Judge. This suit is brought upon three design patents granted to Charles W. Boman, assignor to the plaintiff, -No. 20,156, dated September 16, 1890, for a fountain pen case; No. 20,157, dated September 23, 1890, for a pen tip; and No. 20,158, dated September 23, 1890, for a pen case. The design of the first is of a milled handle and a plain cap, both rounded at the ends, with a bead around the handle at the end of the cap. That of the second is oftwo cylinders of different sizes, with a beveled connection between them, and a bead around the smaller one near the bevel, and an abrupt Hare at the other end of it. That of the third is really the handle of tJJe first,plain, and the tip of the second, brought together. Pen cases of various materials consisting of a handle and a cap, caps and'handles having rounded ends, milled handles, beads arpund handles to stop the caps, and around cyHnders for ornament, pen tips of cylinders of different sizes, and pen tips with flares at the end, were all old. What Boman really accomplished as to the first patent was to bring a milled handle and a plain cap togetherin a fountain pen case. What he accomplished as to the second was to put an abrupt flare to the end of a pen tip of two cylinders of different sizes. And what he accomplished as to the third was to make the handle of his first plain, and bring to it the tip of his second. These chang ll produced things not exactly known before, and in that sense new, but they seem to have been due more to good taste than inventive tlklll, and really too 8light to sustain either patent. Atlantic WorJ.. T. Brady, 107 tr. S. 192, 2 Sup. Ot. Rep.. 225. Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill, with costs.
BROWER v. BOULTON et at (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. December 17, 1892.)
TRADE· MARKS- VALIDITy-REGI<;TRATICN.
Plaintiff's predecessors In business. good will, and trade-marks used the words "La Venzolana" on five shipments of flour lil1873, three in 1885, one In 1886, severalln 1887, 188il, 1889, and 1890. Plaintiff used them on similar shipments thereafter, and caused same to be registered as a trade-mark No-
vember, 1891. Defendant bas u'3ed tbe same words mucq.more oontilwously .· Held, that whataqerued.W ,plaintiff's by the ,use of t;l1e words hi lS7:1 ":" long before !lefendant bega.n, using them hl
SAME-RIGHTS BY REGISTRATION.
tiQ!l tQ. @ybut owners .of trade-murks.
law (21 St. p. 502, c. 138, § 1) gives
rights by registra-
l!\l#1iliity. Suit.:byWiUiamII. lll'(}wer against William G. Boulton and others for alleged infringement ofa certain trade-mark. Bill dismissed., AutoniQKnauth, for plaSntiff. C. a.Kidder, for defendants. WREELEn:, District Judge. A vredecessor of the plaintiff in business, good-will, and trade-marks appears to have used the words "La five shillmants of flow from New York to South Amerin 1886, several in 1887, and several death,.iu. Another predecessor appears to have us.e(1th$lpn similar shipments in J889,and, before his death, in 1890. 'l'h#. pIaWtl.1Y used them similar shipments after that, and caused them tope his trade-mark November. 17, 1891. The de,:fI.rmP,l;l;s used thal'le words much more continuously and ex1l91U' in shipments ever since October 15, :1.884. T4is..' these worda by the plaintiff's predecessor. in 1873 does not been;sqffieientin and time to wake them indicate Willi thai: flour on which they might be placed came whatever in that respect had begun to accrue to biiU b1 that use the abandonment of the use long before thei defendants began them, in 1884. After if either acquired any to tl;l.eexclusive use of those words for that purpose, tl;l.edefenlla1;l:ts, appear, to have done 80. The statute gives no rights but owners of trade-marks. 21 St. 502, through regWtration c.138, § 1. -Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill, with costs.
PUTNAM NAIL 00.
v. AUSABLE HORSENAIL CO.
(01rcuit Court, S. D. New York. January 2, 1893.)
Complainant alleged that by ,irtue of certain patents it had tbe exclusive light to mauufacture, "hOt-forged and baumler-pointed" borsenails hl imitation of tlfe'old hand: process, and that defendant, with intent to cheat and defraud it, bas advertised its nails as "hot forged and hammer pointed," wben in truth thtlyare neither, and that in this way defendant has palmed off its gQqu,s for. those of cotuplainant. It appeared that complainant's nalls arem:ade liS u machine which subjects the nail to quick, percussive blows of, tiWQ pairs of dl'!8, operating alternately upon the entire length of the nall; and that defendant uses a revolving hammer which nets upon the metal by progressive blows,drawing it out from head to pohlt, a ,bevel being formE-d near the point by a stroke of the hammer, ll:lid thl!suriplus metal being then clipped off with shears; and that a siinilarpr6cess of forming the point was called "pohlting by bammer" long complainant's use of the expression hl controversy. Held that,