Case ID: f_130/html/0150-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YOUNG v. CLIPPER MFG. CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    January 27, 1904.)
    No. 52.
    1. Patents — Infringement—Paper Fastener.
    The McIntosh design patent, No. 27,514 for a design for a clip or fastener, if valid, must be confined to the precise details of the design as described and claimed, and is not infringed by a clip of a different shape:
    .Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
    For opinion below, see 121 Fed. 560.
    Harold Binney and S. L. Moody, for appellant.
    Edmund Wetmore, for appellee.
    Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a decree dismissing bill for infringement of patent No. 37,514, granted to complainant, as assignee of William R. McIntosh, August 10, 1897, for a design for a clip or fastener. The' patented design covers “a fastening device made of a single piece of wire bent so as to form a heart-shaped body portion, having depending resilient arms, adapted to impinge upon the body portion.” It is unnecessary to discuss the persuasive evidence introduced in support of the defenses of want of invention, prior public use, anticipation, and lack of patentable novelty, which shows that the patent is of doubtful validity. In any event, in view of said evidence, it must be confined to the precise details of the design, as described and claimed. The patented clip is described and shown in the patent drawing as comprising two curved parts, forming separate loops, so arranged as to constitute the heart-shaped body. The defendant’s design has no curved loops, but comprises two triangles' so contacting at the upper angle as to form a diamond-shaped center. We conclude, therefore, that there is no infringement.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.