Automatic Recording Safe Co. v. Burns Co.

S.D. New York

Automatic Recording Safe Co. v. Burns Co.

224 F. 513, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1377

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 7, 1915·No. No. 11-187·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SANBORN, District Judge.

This case is almost identical with Automatic Recording Safe Company v. Bankers’ Registering Safe Company and White Brass Castings Company, 224 Fed. 506, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; the only difference being that defendant has not used complainant’s trade-mark “Teller.” A copy of the opinion in that case is attached hereto.

For the reasons stated therein, there should be a decree adjudging validity of all the claims sued on, but all held not infringed, except claim 8 of the Fisher patent, No. 793,779; also decreeing defendant liable for unfair competition, and for an account and injunction, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SANBORN, District Judge.

This case is almost identical with Automatic Recording Safe Company v. Bankers’ Registering Safe Company and White Brass Castings Company, 224 Fed. 506, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; the only difference being that defendant has not used complainant’s trade-mark “Teller.” A copy of the opinion in that case is attached hereto.

For the reasons stated therein, there should be a decree adjudging validity of all the claims sued on, but all held not infringed, except claim 8 of the Fisher patent, No. 793,779; also decreeing defendant liable for unfair competition, and for an account and injunction, with costs.

Automatic Recording Safe Co. v. Burns Co., 224 F. 513, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1377 (S.D.N.Y. 1915).

Pincite

224 F. 513 (Automatic Recording Safe Co. v. Burns Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related