F. E. Fonseca & Co. v. Ruy Suarez & Co.

Second Circuit

F. E. Fonseca & Co. v. Ruy Suarez & Co.

232 F. 155, 146 C.C.A. 347, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1814

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1916

DocketNo. 235

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 232 F. 155 (F. E. Fonseca & Co. v. Ruy Suarez & 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

F. E. Fonseca & Co. v. Ruy Suarez & Co., 232 F. 155, 146 C.C.A. 347, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1814 (2d Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, Circuit Judge.

The subject of the patent is a simple wrapper for a cigar which is sufficiently described in the first claim. This claim is as follows:

[156]*156“A cigar package comprising a cigar and the containing protecting cover», the said cover extending normally heyond the ends of the cigar and having its extended ends twisted to form practically cords which are wound back upon the cover and secured.”

The result is that the cigar is covered in a neat paper case upon which any desired printing may be inscribed, such as the name of the cigar and its maker. The twisted ends form cushions which protect the cigar and the covering protects it when -carried in the pocket or cigar case of the smoker. The nearest approach to the patent is the-Whitney envelope which had a different object in view and has none of the distinctive features of the Fonseca patent.

The patent is on the border line between invention and mechanical skill, but we are inclined to think that we should resolve the doubt in favor of the patent. We think it is in the same category as the metallic castor patent which we recently upheld, which consisted in substituting a cup-shaped metal disk for the ordinary wheel castor. Barry v. Harpoon Co., 209 Fed. 207, 126 C. C. A. 301. See, also, Mahony v. Malcom, 143 Fed. 124, 74 C. C. A. 318; Williams v. String Wrapper Co., 86 Fed. 641, 30 C. C. A. 318; Gandy v. Belting Co., 143 U. S. 587, 12 Sup. Ct. 598, 36 L. Ed. 272.

The wrapper in question has many advantages which appeal to the smoker. It keeps the cigar clean, it prevents it from being broken at the ends if roughly handled and it enables the maker to advertise and identify his cigars which partly by reason of his covers, we may assume, have become popular with the public.

The decree is reversed with costs.

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

COXE, Circuit Judge.

The subject of the patent is a simple wrapper for a cigar which is sufficiently described in the first claim. This claim is as follows:

[156]*156“A cigar package comprising a cigar and the containing protecting cover», the said cover extending normally heyond the ends of the cigar and having its extended ends twisted to form practically cords which are wound back upon the cover and secured.”

The result is that the cigar is covered in a neat paper case upon which any desired printing may be inscribed, such as the name of the cigar and its maker. The twisted ends form cushions which protect the cigar and the covering protects it when -carried in the pocket or cigar case of the smoker. The nearest approach to the patent is the-Whitney envelope which had a different object in view and has none of the distinctive features of the Fonseca patent.

The patent is on the border line between invention and mechanical skill, but we are inclined to think that we should resolve the doubt in favor of the patent. We think it is in the same category as the metallic castor patent which we recently upheld, which consisted in substituting a cup-shaped metal disk for the ordinary wheel castor. Barry v. Harpoon Co., 209 Fed. 207, 126 C. C. A. 301. See, also, Mahony v. Malcom, 143 Fed. 124, 74 C. C. A. 318; Williams v. String Wrapper Co., 86 Fed. 641, 30 C. C. A. 318; Gandy v. Belting Co., 143 U. S. 587, 12 Sup. Ct. 598, 36 L. Ed. 272.

The wrapper in question has many advantages which appeal to the smoker. It keeps the cigar clean, it prevents it from being broken at the ends if roughly handled and it enables the maker to advertise and identify his cigars which partly by reason of his covers, we may assume, have become popular with the public.

The decree is reversed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 F. 155, 146 C.C.A. 347, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-e-fonseca-co-v-ruy-suarez-co-ca2-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack