Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. Jay-Day Frocks Inc.

112 F.2d 715, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 632
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 10, 1940
Docket362
StatusPublished
Cited by38 cases

This text of 112 F.2d 715 (Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. Jay-Day Frocks Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Neufeld-Furst & Co. v. Jay-Day Frocks Inc., 112 F.2d 715, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 632 (2d Cir. 1940).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this circuit it is firmly established that more is required for a valid design patent than that the design be new and pleasing enough to catch the trade; it must be the product of “invention,” by which is meant that conception of the design must demand some exceptional talent beyond the skill of the ordinary designer. Nat Lewis Purses, Inc., v. Carole Bags, Inc., 2 Cir., 83 F.2d 475. Such a standard is necessarily vague and difficult of application. Nevertheless, “we are obliged to determine, as best we may, whether the design in question is original and ¿esthetic and involved a step beyond the prior art requiring what is termed ‘inventive genius.’ ” See A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Shemitz, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 98, 99. In the case at bar the prior art showed numerous designs for dresses each of which had one'or more of the salient features of the patent in suit. To combine them into the design of the patent produced a dress of new and pleasing appearance which caught the fancy of the purchasing public in the summer of 1938, but we cannot say that it required more than the ■ skill of a good dressmaker who had, or is chargeable with, knowledge of the prior art. We think the patent is invalid. The decree should be reversed and the complaint dismissed. So ordered.

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

Related

Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. Olga Company (Inc.)
510 F.2d 336 (Second Circuit, 1975)
Dale Electronics, Inc. v. R. C. L. Electronics, Inc.
356 F. Supp. 1117 (D. New Hampshire, 1973)
William Hodges & Co., Inc. v. Sterwood Corp.
348 F. Supp. 383 (E.D. New York, 1972)
G. B. Lewis Company v. Gould Products, Inc.
436 F.2d 1176 (Second Circuit, 1971)
Bachmann Bros. v. Opti-Ray, Inc.
273 F. Supp. 847 (E.D. New York, 1967)
International Silver Co. v. Julie Pomerantz
271 F.2d 69 (Second Circuit, 1959)
Patriarca Mfg., Inc. v. Sosnick
169 F. Supp. 204 (N.D. California, 1958)
H. W. Gossard Co. v. Neatform Co.
143 F. Supp. 139 (S.D. New York, 1956)
Spirt v. J. F. D. Manufacturing Co.
132 F. Supp. 424 (E.D. New York, 1955)
Blisscraft v. Rona Plastic Corp.
123 F. Supp. 552 (S.D. New York, 1954)
Tourneau v. Tishman & Lipp
119 F. Supp. 593 (S.D. New York, 1953)
Columbus Plastic Products, Inc. v. Rona Plastic Corp.
111 F. Supp. 623 (S.D. New York, 1953)
Baker v. Webb
112 F. Supp. 394 (D. Oregon, 1953)
United Metal Goods Mfg. Co. v. La Belle Silver Co.
104 F. Supp. 790 (E.D. New York, 1952)
Chas. D. Briddell, Inc. v. Alglobe Trading Corp.
194 F.2d 416 (Second Circuit, 1952)
Grinoch v. Tuxton Cravats, Inc.
101 F. Supp. 391 (S.D. New York, 1951)
Alfred Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.
191 F.2d 99 (Second Circuit, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 F.2d 715, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neufeld-furst-co-v-jay-day-frocks-inc-ca2-1940.