Lehnbenter v. Holthaus

Supreme Court

Lehnbenter v. Holthaus

12 F. 221, 21 O.G. 1783

DecidedMarch 6, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. 221 (Lehnbenter v. Holthaus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lehnbenter v. Holthaus, 12 F. 221, 21 O.G. 1783 (U.S. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Woods

delivering the opinion, reversing the decree of the circuit court which dismissed the hill, and remanding the cause for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the supreme court.

In an action for infringement of a design patent, where comparison of the drawing appended to the patent with the cut of the circular, which it is admitted represents articles manufactured and sold by defendants, makes it clear that the latter is a servile copy of tho former, excepting a slight inclination backward, hardly perceptible, of the glass constituting the front of the elevated portions of the show-case, the subject of the design, it is an infringement of the patented design. The patent is prima faote ovidenee of both novelty and utility, and the fact that it has been infringed by the defendants is sufficient to establish its utility, at least, as to them. Citing Whitney v. Mowry, 4 Fish. 207

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

Mr. Justice Woods

delivering the opinion, reversing the decree of the circuit court which dismissed the hill, and remanding the cause for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the supreme court.

In an action for infringement of a design patent, where comparison of the drawing appended to the patent with the cut of the circular, which it is admitted represents articles manufactured and sold by defendants, makes it clear that the latter is a servile copy of tho former, excepting a slight inclination backward, hardly perceptible, of the glass constituting the front of the elevated portions of the show-case, the subject of the design, it is an infringement of the patented design. The patent is prima faote ovidenee of both novelty and utility, and the fact that it has been infringed by the defendants is sufficient to establish its utility, at least, as to them. Citing Whitney v. Mowry, 4 Fish. 207

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. 221, 21 O.G. 1783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehnbenter-v-holthaus-scotus-1882.