BLISSCRAFT, ALSO KNOWN AS AND DOING BUSINESS AS BLISSCRAFT OF HOLLYWOOD, CHARLES O. BLISS, BEATRICE BLISS AND WALTER MULLER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
RONA PLASTIC CORPORATION, DEFENDANT
BLISSCRAFT, ALSO KNOWN AS AND DOING BUSINESS AS BLISSCRAFT OF HOLLYWOOD, CHARLES O. BLISS, BEATRICE BLISS AND WALTER MULLER, PLAINTIFFS,
RONA PLASTIC CORPORATION, DEFENDANT
219 F.2d 238
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1955)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The commercial embodiment of the design patent in suit is a plastic butter dish. Prior to patenting the design the patentee examined all the butter dishes on the market and hit upon a slightly different shape which his wife said had “appeal”. The purchasing public apparently agreed with her, for the plaintiffs have sold more than 4,000,000 of such dishes since they began to manufacture the article in 1948. Judge Noonan ruled the patent, if valid, was infringed, but held it invalid for lack of invention. We agree.
The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the district court, 123 F.Supp. 552.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blisscraft OF Hollywood v. United Plastics Co., 294 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1961)
-
Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G. Salzman, Inc., 302 F.2d 614 (2d Cir. 1962)
-
Hobart v. O'Brien, 243 F.2d 735 (1st Cir. 1957)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence