New York Button Works v. Crescent Button Co.

S.D. New York

New York Button Works v. Crescent Button Co.

185 F. 820, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720

DecidedSeptember 19, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 185 F. 820 (New York Button Works v. Crescent Button Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New York Button Works v. Crescent Button Co., 185 F. 820, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720 (S.D.N.Y. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

It is at least doubtful on these papers whether the decree against Liberman was anything more than a consent decree.' Therefore a clear case for a preliminary injunction must be made out. I think that in view of the affidavits put in by the defendants, particularly those of Hornich and Menkin, who seem disinterested witnesses, in which it is asserted that similar buttons were made and sold long before the patent was applied for, it would be improper to issue a preliminary injunction in this case.'

Moreover, I think that a question may be raised on the trial whether this button is the subject of a design patent. A design patent is based on the idea of beauty or ornamentation. I do not understand that the mere shape of a useful article, or a pleasing appearance caused by the use of a handsome material in its manufacture, is a subject of a design patent. This is a good-looking .button; but it has no ornamentation, and its fundamental purpose is utility. If a valid design patent can be taken out for this button, I do not see why one could not be taken out for'every different kind of well-made button.

But, at all events, on the proof tending to show prior use in the papers submitted, I think the motion should be denied.

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

HOLT, District Judge.

It is at least doubtful on these papers whether the decree against Liberman was anything more than a consent decree.' Therefore a clear case for a preliminary injunction must be made out. I think that in view of the affidavits put in by the defendants, particularly those of Hornich and Menkin, who seem disinterested witnesses, in which it is asserted that similar buttons were made and sold long before the patent was applied for, it would be improper to issue a preliminary injunction in this case.'

Moreover, I think that a question may be raised on the trial whether this button is the subject of a design patent. A design patent is based on the idea of beauty or ornamentation. I do not understand that the mere shape of a useful article, or a pleasing appearance caused by the use of a handsome material in its manufacture, is a subject of a design patent. This is a good-looking .button; but it has no ornamentation, and its fundamental purpose is utility. If a valid design patent can be taken out for this button, I do not see why one could not be taken out for'every different kind of well-made button.

But, at all events, on the proof tending to show prior use in the papers submitted, I think the motion should be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 F. 820, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-button-works-v-crescent-button-co-nysd-1910.