Frank v. Bernard

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Frank v. Bernard

146 F. 137, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJune 2, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 146 F. 137 (Frank v. Bernard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank v. Bernard, 146 F. 137, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831 (circtsdny 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

It makes no difference that defendant’s manufacturers have made match stands having the leather ring, inserted in the base, held between perpendicular walls. It is not disputed that defendant sold the article Ex. No. 2 since the service of the injunction. Mere inspection of the article will show that the top of the inner wall is inclined sufficiently towards the opposite wall to pinch the leather ring. It may be that this is a sporadic case, where some accident of manufacture has produced a result sought to be avoided. Therefore the penalty for disobedience of the injunction will be made [138]*138slight ($10) ; but should the discovery of other articles of like construction sold subsequent to injunction indicate persistent infringement a heavier penalty will be exacted.

The exhibit has been marked on the base “E H L,.”

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

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

It makes no difference that defendant’s manufacturers have made match stands having the leather ring, inserted in the base, held between perpendicular walls. It is not disputed that defendant sold the article Ex. No. 2 since the service of the injunction. Mere inspection of the article will show that the top of the inner wall is inclined sufficiently towards the opposite wall to pinch the leather ring. It may be that this is a sporadic case, where some accident of manufacture has produced a result sought to be avoided. Therefore the penalty for disobedience of the injunction will be made [138]*138slight ($10) ; but should the discovery of other articles of like construction sold subsequent to injunction indicate persistent infringement a heavier penalty will be exacted.

The exhibit has been marked on the base “E H L,.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F. 137, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-bernard-circtsdny-1906.