Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Baltimore City v. Brooklyn Bottle Stopper Co.

Second Circuit

Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Baltimore City v. Brooklyn Bottle Stopper Co.

200 F. 592, 119 C.C.A. 20, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1888

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 11, 1912

DocketNo. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 F. 592 (Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Baltimore City v. Brooklyn Bottle Stopper Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Baltimore City v. Brooklyn Bottle Stopper Co., 200 F. 592, 119 C.C.A. 20, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1888 (2d Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We concur in the conclusions reached by Judge Chatfield, which have subsequently been justified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, 56 L. Ed. 645. We think, however, that the decree entered went too far in requiring the defendants to account for profits and pay damages on all sales of caps to users of complainant’s machines, unless they showed affirmatively that the caps were not to be used in connection with the licensed machines. The decree is dated July 24, 1909, and patent No. 473,776, in suit, expired April 29, 1909. Before the latter date the defendants have been rightly held to know that all caps sold by them were intended to be used on the complainant’s licensed machines, but after that date, when a large number of complainant's machines had been freed from the license, the defendants could not know whether purchasers intended to use the caps on licensed or unlicensed machines. The burden of proof in the accounting after that date as to sales should be on the complainant.

The decree, as modified, is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We concur in the conclusions reached by Judge Chatfield, which have subsequently been justified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, 56 L. Ed. 645. We think, however, that the decree entered went too far in requiring the defendants to account for profits and pay damages on all sales of caps to users of complainant’s machines, unless they showed affirmatively that the caps were not to be used in connection with the licensed machines. The decree is dated July 24, 1909, and patent No. 473,776, in suit, expired April 29, 1909. Before the latter date the defendants have been rightly held to know that all caps sold by them were intended to be used on the complainant’s licensed machines, but after that date, when a large number of complainant's machines had been freed from the license, the defendants could not know whether purchasers intended to use the caps on licensed or unlicensed machines. The burden of proof in the accounting after that date as to sales should be on the complainant.

The decree, as modified, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F. 592, 119 C.C.A. 20, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crown-cork-seal-co-of-baltimore-city-v-brooklyn-bottle-stopper-co-ca2-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack