Nat Lewis Purses, Inc. v. Carole Bags, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
83 F.2d 475 · 1936
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 1994 · most notably Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. (1951), Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G. Salzman, Inc. (1962)
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Graff, Washbourne & Dunn v. Webster · Strause Gas Iron Co. v. William M. Crane Co. · Steffens v. Steiner · Whiting Mfg. Co. v. Alvin Silver Co. · American Fabrics Co. v. Richmond Lace Works
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* •* * jf -¿he test of invention is the same for design, as for mechanical, patents, the patent in suit cannot survive. “There has undoubtedly been some vacillation about that question in the books. Some opinions appear to imply that if a design be new and pleasing enough to catch the trade, nothing more is required. Wood & Sons v. Abelson’s, Inc., 3 Cir., 74 F.2d 895 , may possibly be so read, and something very close to it appeared in Graff, Washbourne & Dunn v. Webster, 2 Cir., 195 F. 522 ; Dominick & Haff v. Wallace & Sons Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 209 F. 223 ; and Mygatt v. Schaffer, 2 Cir., 218 F. 827 . When Steffens v. Steiner, 2 Cir., 232 F. 862 , was in the District Court, the judge sustained some patents for cigar bands, which were new but to whose production no greater talents were necessary than those of journeymen designers. This he did, because he read the three decisions we have just cited as establishing a different standard for design from that for mechanical patents. We said no; we held that a design patent must be the product of ‘invention,’ by which we meant the same exceptional talent that is required for a mechanical patent. Since then we have several times expressly reiterated the doctrine. * * * It is doubtful whether the opinions which are supposed to set up the other standard really meant to do so; the language was discursive rather than constitutive, and can be naturally enough limited to the concrete situations before the courts, upon which it was appropr”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.