Keystone Type Foundry v. National Compositype Co.

Fourth Circuit

Keystone Type Foundry v. National Compositype Co.

193 F. 1021, 113 C.C.A. 667, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1119

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 1912

DocketNo. 1,045

StatusPublished

This text of 193 F. 1021 (Keystone Type Foundry v. National Compositype Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keystone Type Foundry v. National Compositype Co., 193 F. 1021, 113 C.C.A. 667, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1119 (4th Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appears that the appellant, the plaintiff below, is manufacturing and selling a certain kind of type of alleged new and original faces which it calls “Caslon Bold” ; that the appellee, the defendant below, is manufacturing a machine with which to cast and make type, which it calls the “Automatic Type Caster,” which it designs to sell to the printers of the country for the purpose of casting their own type. It is apparent that the elements of fraud and deception to be practiced upon the purchaser or consumer, essential to the maintenance of a bill like this for unfair competition, as set forth in Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Allen Bros. Tobacco Company C. C.), 151 Fed. 819, and other like cases, do not exist in this case. Therefore the decree of the court below, dismissing the bill, must be affirmed. Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appears that the appellant, the plaintiff below, is manufacturing and selling a certain kind of type of alleged new and original faces which it calls “Caslon Bold” ; that the appellee, the defendant below, is manufacturing a machine with which to cast and make type, which it calls the “Automatic Type Caster,” which it designs to sell to the printers of the country for the purpose of casting their own type. It is apparent that the elements of fraud and deception to be practiced upon the purchaser or consumer, essential to the maintenance of a bill like this for unfair competition, as set forth in Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Allen Bros. Tobacco Company C. C.), 151 Fed. 819, and other like cases, do not exist in this case. Therefore the decree of the court below, dismissing the bill, must be affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 F. 1021, 113 C.C.A. 667, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keystone-type-foundry-v-national-compositype-co-ca4-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack