Macdonald v. Blackmer

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

Macdonald v. Blackmer

16 F. Cas. 38, 9 O.G. 746, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1756

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

DecidedApril 4, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 F. Cas. 38 (Macdonald v. Blackmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Macdonald v. Blackmer, 16 F. Cas. 38, 9 O.G. 746, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1756 (circtdma 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEPLEY, Circuit Judge.

Since the disclaimer, which was filed before the date of the bill in this case, the claim of the complainant is limited to that only which was described in the specification of her patent— viz., “as a new article of manufacture, a skirt-protector, having a fluted or plated border bound with or composed of enameled cloth or other water-proof material.” I see no reason to doubt that she was the first and original inventor -of .this article, as distinguished from a skirt-fácing, which is an entirely different article, and from a skirt-protector, which' being made of wigan or similar material, was substantially useless for the purpose, as compared with the complainant’s invention.

Decree for injunction and account, as prayed for' in the bill.

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

SHEPLEY, Circuit Judge.

Since the disclaimer, which was filed before the date of the bill in this case, the claim of the complainant is limited to that only which was described in the specification of her patent— viz., “as a new article of manufacture, a skirt-protector, having a fluted or plated border bound with or composed of enameled cloth or other water-proof material.” I see no reason to doubt that she was the first and original inventor -of .this article, as distinguished from a skirt-fácing, which is an entirely different article, and from a skirt-protector, which' being made of wigan or similar material, was substantially useless for the purpose, as compared with the complainant’s invention.

Decree for injunction and account, as prayed for' in the bill.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. Cas. 38, 9 O.G. 746, 1876 U.S. App. LEXIS 1756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macdonald-v-blackmer-circtdma-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack