Natural Food Co. v. Williams

Seventh Circuit

Natural Food Co. v. Williams

163 F. 252, 89 C.C.A. 630, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4555

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 1908

DocketNo. 1,398

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 F. 252 (Natural Food Co. v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Natural Food Co. v. Williams, 163 F. 252, 89 C.C.A. 630, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4555 (7th Cir. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

BAKER, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Appellant’s averments of identity and consequent interference are unavailing against the demurrer if their falsity appears from an inspection of -the patents.

Passmg appellee’s contentions that the Perky patent is void on its face and therefore cannot supply a basis for any kind of suit in equity, and that interference can never properly be declared under section 4918 between a design patent and a mechanical patent, owing to their difference in character, we think it sufficient in this case to say that we find no interference in fact. The form which Perky claimed was beautiful and the form which Williams said was useful are radically different in their appeal to the eye, for in one the dominant line is straight and in the other curved.

The decree is affirmed.

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

BAKER, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Appellant’s averments of identity and consequent interference are unavailing against the demurrer if their falsity appears from an inspection of -the patents.

Passmg appellee’s contentions that the Perky patent is void on its face and therefore cannot supply a basis for any kind of suit in equity, and that interference can never properly be declared under section 4918 between a design patent and a mechanical patent, owing to their difference in character, we think it sufficient in this case to say that we find no interference in fact. The form which Perky claimed was beautiful and the form which Williams said was useful are radically different in their appeal to the eye, for in one the dominant line is straight and in the other curved.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 F. 252, 89 C.C.A. 630, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natural-food-co-v-williams-ca7-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack