John Wright, Inc. v. Casper Corp.

419 F. Supp. 292, 191 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 369, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14426
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 25, 1976
DocketCiv. A. 75-63
StatusPublished
Cited by53 cases

This text of 419 F. Supp. 292 (John Wright, Inc. v. Casper Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John Wright, Inc. v. Casper Corp., 419 F. Supp. 292, 191 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 369, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14426 (E.D. Pa. 1976).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FULLAM, District Judge.

The parties to this lawsuit are rivals in the manufacture and sale of mechanical penny banks. Each claims that its products are faithful reproductions of original cast-iron banks — now collectors’ items — which were introduced in the United States shortly after the Civil War and remained popular through the early 1900s. John Wright, Inc. is the senior of the two competitors; it seeks injunctive relief and damages for alleged unfair competition and false advertising. At the close of the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction I reserved decision and gave the parties the option to bypass further preliminaries by submitting whatever additional evidence they deemed necessary to complete the record and convert the proceedings to a final hearing on the matter. They chose this course and filed supplemental materials, including exhibits and depositions, for my review. What follows, therefore, is my final decision; plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Relief will be denied as moot.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The plaintiff is a corporation and a citizen of Pennsylvania having its principal place of business at 113 N. Front Street, Wrightsville, Pennsylvania 17368.

2. The defendant Casper Corporation (Casper) is a citizen of New York. Its principal place of business is located at 14 E. 28th Street, New York, New York 10016.

3. Casper does business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

4. The defendant Casper Pinsker is a citizen of Connecticut residing at 18 River Lane, Westport, Connecticut 06880.

5. Casper Pinsker does business as Casper Imports, a corporation which is a citizen of New York, with headquarters at 14 E. 28th Street, New York, New York 10016.

6. Casper Imports does not manufacture, import, advertise, sell, or have anything at all to do with mechanical penny banks.

7. The first patent on a ca'st-iron mechanical penny bank was issued in 1869. This bank was a modest action toy which used a balance mechanism: The weight of the penny, placed on a strategic spot, caused a small figurine to tip forward into a hatch in the top of the bank, carrying the penny with it. A door then closed over the hatch.

8. Other, more elaborate penny banks followed, using intricate level, spring, and clockwork devices designed to maximize their “action” features. Between 1870 and 1910 approximately 250 different banks were produced, most of which were patented. Some were humorous, by 19th century standards; many celebrated Americana and patriotic or military themes (e. g., Uncle Sam, Teddy Roosevelt and the Bear, Artillery Bank). There was a Tammany Bank featuring Boss Tweed. Penny banks commemorated the Centennial of 1876 and the World’s Fair of 1892. Many fanciful penny banks were designed to appeal especially to children (Humpty Dumpty, Punch and Judy, Circus Clown, Trick Pony, and others).

*302 9. All patents on these original penny-banks expired long ago.

10. In the 19th century, mechanical penny banks were made either from a disassembled, cast-iron model or, in the case of a wholly-original design, from individual wooden parts. Brass masters, or match plates, were made of each piece. From the match plates the artisans fashioned sand molds into which they poured molten iron. Finally, the cooled, cast-iron pieces were filed, assembled, and painted, all by hand. In the course of each casting process, the sand molds were destroyed, but the brass match plates, from which new sand molds continually were made, lasted for many years.

11. The leading manufacturer of 19th century mechanical penny banks was the J. & E. Stevens Company of Cromwell, Connecticut (Old Stevens Foundry).

12. Another foundry which produced penny banks during this time was the Grey Iron Casting Company of Mt. Joy, Pennsylvania.

13. In 1957 an advertising man named Lee Howard approached The Grolier Society, Inc. (Grolier), a publishing firm in New York, with an idea for a public relations campaign on behalf of Grolier’s children’s encyclopedia, The Book of Knowledge. Howard proposed to assemble a collection of original mechanical penny banks, under the aegis of The Book of Knowledge; to arrange for production of authentic replicas of these banks; and to persuade lending institutions throughout the country to sponsor and publicize local exhibits of The Book of Knowledge penny bank collection and to offer a limited number of the replicas for sale to the general public.

14. Grolier accepted Howard’s proposal. On February 1, 1957, they signed an agreement which provided, among other things, that Grolier would finance the purchase, through Howard, of a number of original antique penny banks; that Howard would supervise and bear the cost of manufacturing replicas of these originals; that on the base of each replica would be an inscription to the effect that, “This coin bank is a reproduction of the original in the collection of The Book of Knowledge”; that Howard would develop public relations materials for use by participating lending institutions; that these materials would stress the fact that the reproductions were of originals in The Book of Knowledge Collection; and that each replica sold to the public would be accompanied by a certificate of authenticity and a leaflet or brochure describing the history of 19th century penny banks and “carrying a short description of the background of The Book of Knowledge.”

15. Paragraph 9 of the agreement authorized Howard to use the names “The Grolier Society” and “The Book of Knowledge” in his penny bank advertising materials and gave Grolier the right to review all copy in advance of its publication. It provided further that if Grolier failed to “disapprove any copy in writing within ten (10) days after receipt by it of such copy, then such copy [would] be deemed approved.”

16. The agreement was for three years, with an option to renew.

17. Pursuant to the agreement between himself and Grolier, Howard negotiated the purchase of a total of 31 original 19th century penny banks which came to be known as The Book of Knowledge Collection. All of the original banks in the collection were owned by Grolier, except for a small number which Howard bought with his own money and lent to the collection as permitted by the agreement.

18. Between 1957 and 1959, several hundred lending institutions throughout the country participated in Howard’s Book of Knowledge campaign, which he called “The Tradition of American Thrift.” Each participating bank received a shipment of eight *303 or nine original banks from The Book of Knowledge Collection which was displayed in its lobby amid wide publicity in all local news media. Participating banks purchased Book of Knowledge reproductions directly from Howard for $10 each and sold them to the general public at cost.

19. To manufacture reproductions of penny banks from The Book of Knowledge Collection, Howard selected the Grey Iron Casting Company of Mt. Joy, Pennsylvania (Grey Iron), because that foundry had made penny banks in the 19th century and had not mechanized its plant since that time.

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

Related

Landrau v. Solis-Betancourt
554 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Puerto Rico, 2008)
Urban Outfitters, Inc. v. BCBG Max Azria Group, Inc.
511 F. Supp. 2d 482 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2007)
Analytic Recruiting, Inc. v. Analytic Resources, LLC
156 F. Supp. 2d 499 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2001)
Chrysler Corp. v. Vanzant
44 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (C.D. California, 1999)
In Re Circuit Breaker Litigation
860 F. Supp. 1453 (C.D. California, 1994)
Monoflo International, Inc. v. Sahm
726 F. Supp. 121 (E.D. Virginia, 1989)
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United States
35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,607 (Court of Claims, 1988)
Society of Survivors of Riga Ghetto, Inc. v. Huttenbach
141 Misc. 2d 921 (New York Supreme Court, 1988)
Knorr-Nahrmittel A.G. v. Reese Finer Foods, Inc.
695 F. Supp. 787 (D. New Jersey, 1988)
Castle v. Cohen
676 F. Supp. 620 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1987)
American Home Products Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson
672 F. Supp. 135 (S.D. New York, 1987)
New Hampshire Donuts, Inc. v. Skipitaris
533 A.2d 351 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1987)
Stiffel Co. v. Westwood Lighting Group
658 F. Supp. 1103 (D. New Jersey, 1987)
Upjohn Co. v. Riahom Corp.
641 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Delaware, 1986)
Standard Terry Mills, Inc. v. Shen Manufacturing Co.
626 F. Supp. 1362 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1986)
A.J. Canfield Co. v. Concord Beverage Co.
629 F. Supp. 200 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1985)
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Trump
617 F. Supp. 1443 (D. New Jersey, 1985)
Mercury Foam Corp. v. L & N SALES & MARKETING
625 F. Supp. 87 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1985)
Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Input Graphics, Inc.
608 F. Supp. 1549 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
419 F. Supp. 292, 191 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 369, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-wright-inc-v-casper-corp-paed-1976.