Home/E.D. Michigan/Nelmor Corp. v. Jervis Corp.

Nelmor Corp. v. Jervis Corp.

229 F. Supp. 864, 141 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 431, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9736
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedApril 27, 1964
DocketCiv. A. No. 22655
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 229 F. Supp. 864 (Nelmor Corp. v. Jervis Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nelmor Corp. v. Jervis Corp., 229 F. Supp. 864, 141 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 431, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9736 (E.D. Mich. 1964).

Opinion

LEVIN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, Nelmor Corporation, an Illinois corporation having its principal place of business in Michigan, seeks declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201,2202, against Jervis Corporation, a Michigan corporation, holding that defendant’s patent No. 2,931,245 (assigned to defendant by Edwin B. Jacobson and hereinafter referred to as the Jacobson patent) is invalid and, additionally, that plaintiff has not infringed this patent.

Plaintiff, a manufacturer and vendor of remote control rear view mirrors for automotive vehicles, alleges interference with its trade because the defendant threatened plaintiff’s customers with suit for infringement of the Jacobson patent.

The defendant’s answer requests a declaration that the patent is valid, a holding of infringement of Claims 2 and 20 of the Jacobson patent and of defendant’s trademark, No. 601,519, and that plaintiff engaged in acts of unfair competition. Jurisdiction of this last claim exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1338.

The court had the benefit of expert testimony from persons familiar with the art, models of devices manufactured and sold by the parties, models made under the prior art, comprehensive briefs before and after trial, and oral argument of counsel.

It is the opinion of this court: I. that the patent here in suit invalid for want of novelty and inventiveness;1 II. that even if the patent were valid there has been no infringement; and III. that plaintiff has neither infringed defendant’s trademark nor engaged in acts of unfair competition.

The products of both plaintiff and defendant are commonly seen in automobiles, wherein a handle is located on the dashboard or inside of the door and a mirror is located on the left front fender or on the outside of the left front door. In the patented device, as well as that marketed by plaintiff, a handle is attached to a control member which rests in a socket, and the mirror is held against a single pivot, shaped as a ball, which allows universal movement. Three cables connect the control member to the mirror in such a manner that when the handle is manipulated corresponding movement is imparted to the rear view mirror.

[866]*866

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

Related

Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Saunders Archery Company
516 F.2d 846 (Eighth Circuit, 1975)
Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co. v. Saunders Archery Co.
516 F.2d 846 (Eighth Circuit, 1975)
Engelhard Industries, Inc. v. Sel-Rex Corp.
255 F. Supp. 620 (D. New Jersey, 1966)
Nelmor Corporation v. Jervis Corporation
354 F.2d 923 (Sixth Circuit, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
229 F. Supp. 864, 141 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 431, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelmor-corp-v-jervis-corp-mied-1964.