The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-30 00:00:00

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS.

Mr. Corrie, the magistrate at Bew-itreet, was occupied
during the greater portion of the evening yesterday in thc
investigation of a case in which Mesira. Clarkson and Co:,
the well-known chintz manufactniNirs, of Baniston Hall
Works, Lancashire, and of Coventry;ltrept and Cheapside,
London, proceeded to recover penaltikAinder the Copyright
of Designs Act, 5 and 6 Vie., against*lsrd. Shoo"'bred and
Co., of Tottenham-court-road, for expo)* for sale certain
patterns of chintz being a fraudulent initiation of a design
registered by the complainants.
CounselsVeie4etained on both sides ; Mr.A.sten, instructed
by Messrs Bailey, Shaw, and Smith, for the prosecution, and
Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr. Ashurat, for the defence.

Mr. Aston stated the case. In the early part of last year
Mr. The's. Clarkson, the son of Mr. Clarkson, the head of
the them, was informed by Messrs. Jackson and Graham
that they would be glad to have a nice lilac chintz. Incon-
sequence of this Mr. Clarkson instructed the designer and
artist of his firm to prepare such a design, which was done.
The design was registered, and by an agreement with Messrs.
Jackson and Graham they became the sole licensees, with
the exclusive right of sellieg the pattern. In April, 1863,
Mr. Clarkson discovered that Messrs. Walters, of New-
gate-street, were selling a pattern so precisely similar that
they believed it to have been imitated from the registered
,des4su, with only so mucie alteration that it could not lie
strictly termed a copy. Of this Mr. Clarkson thought it
his duty to give intimation to Messrs. Jackson and Graham.
In consequence of that a correspondence ensued, and the
matter was arranged by Messrs. Walters taking a course
which ought to be regarded as a precedent by every re-
spectable firm. They agreed not to issue any more of
the " pirated " pattern, but to give up to Messrs. Jack-
son and Graham all the stock they had on hand, to recall
all the " patterns " then out on show (a sample of the
design), and, with regard to any portion which had been
sold for consumption, that if the parties should require
more to match they should be referred to Jackson and
Graham, from whom only they should be enabled to
receive it. Subsequently it was ascertained that Messrs.
Shoolbred were selling a chintz of the same pattern. An
attempt was made to induce them to accede to the same
terms as Messrs. Walters, but they declined, and after a
protracted correspondence closed the matter by referring
to their solicitors. In the course of that correspondence
Messrs. Shoolbred intimated that a copy of the agreement
between Messrs. Walters and Messrs. Jackson and Graham
sent to them by the latter firm was not correct, and that in
the agreement there was an understanding that there was to
be no interference with those who might have purchased
from Walters and Co. before the date of the agreement, and
that therefore they were justified in selling the chintz, as
they had purchased it before that period.
Upon the agreement being produced, Mr. Corrie said it
was somewhat ambiguous, and he thought it did not touch
the point as to the chintz sold before that time. However,
if the design was a fraudulent imitation, the defendants
would not be justified in selling it after their attention was
drawn to it. He would suggest, however, as both parties
were very respectable, the whole affair might be settled by
amicable arrangement.
After a discussion, in the course of which it appeared that
Messrs. Shoolbred had bought 60 pieces from Messrs.
Walters, and had 35 pieces left, the case proceeded, neither
party being willing to come to any agreement.
Mr. Aston then proceeded at some length to call the atten-
tion of the magistrate to the details of the two designs, con-
tending that they were similar in all general and leading
features, and that they only differed in some minor details.
The original consisted of lilacs of four colours, viz., the na-
tural, red, violet, and white, with green leaves, and the imi-
tation contained natural, violet and white lilacs, red roses,
and green leaves. Mr. Aston then called a number of wit-
nesses, partly as to the facts, and partly as to their judg-
ment as persons of experience that the design in question
was an imitation. Amongst them were Mr. Dennis, who
superintended, and Mr. Aumonin, who executed the design
which had been registered. They said the design was what
is called a " bordered and filled chintz." The filling, which
is the middle portion of the pattern, was designed first, and
it then occurred to the artists to put a border of the same
flowers. They gave their opinion that the general effects,
the colours, the grouping, and all the essentials of the two
designs were the same, and that the variations were only
introduced for the purpose of making some sort of distinc-
tion. They considered it quite impossible that the second
could have been male so like the first by accident. They
were satisfied that the designer must have imitated it from
the registered design.
Mr. Corrie had great difficulty in perceiving any greater
resemblance than would necessarily arise if it was admitted
that any one might make a bordered and filled chintz with
a pattern of lilacs of those colours.
The witness explained in great detail that the absolute
and relative sizes of the patterns and the various parts, the
groupings, arrangements, and " balancing" of the colours
were the same; and upon Mr. Carrie pointing out distinc-
tions, the witnesses declared those points of difference to be
wholly immaterial.
Several members of large firms in the chintz trade, and
having many years' experience, thoroughly confirmed the
opinions of Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Dennis, and Mr. Aurnonin,
one gentleman going so far as to declare, that if curtains of
the respective designs were hung on opposite sides of the
bench a person in the body of the court would not be able
to distinguish them.
For the defence Mr. Poland called
Mr. Wm. Pearman, a designer of 20 years' experience,
who said he was instructed by Mr. Sinnett, manager to
Walters and Son, to design the chintz in question. It was
to be a bordered and filled chintz, and a sheet of a French
pattern was given him as a guide to the colours. Ile had
never seen the registered design till last week.
Mr. Sinnett proved that he received the design from Mr.
Pearman in September, which was before the other was re-
gistered, and of course before he had seen it. Had shown
patterns of it to Jackson and Graham, asking them to buy
some of the chintz. Never admitted. that it was an imita-
tion, but male the agreement to avoid litigation, and be-
cause it was worth his while, Jackson and Graham being
good customers. It was distinctly understood that persons
who had purchased should not be interfered with.
Mr. Corrie said that even on the view of the patterns he
did not think this was an imitation; but after this evidence
he must either declare the two witnesses were perjured, or
dismiss the summons.

Mr. Poland applied for costs.
Mr. Corrio thought they had better drop it, and not
quarrel any more. No doubt the complainants had really
thought it was a fraudulent imitation, but they must be
convinced to the contrary now.
Summone dismissed,