The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-12-16
DECISION

0k0x "
IN the decision Of the suit of the Gorham
Msnufaoturing Company vs. White, the Su.
premeC Court OF the United States has rendered
sig6al and important service to the progress
of the fine arts. By the statute OF 1872, Con:
gress authorized The commissioner 10 grant
letters patent" to those whose industry,
genius, efforts, and expense" should produce
new designs for printing, statues, bas relieves
In short, for all forms of Commentator. IL
WA the intent Of this act that the art OF decora-
ton should enjoy the fostering care and protec-
ton which has conferred such conspicuous
benefts upon the American inventions IN the
mechanic arts; and Ia constituting this law ID
ouch manner as to give practical protection to
the desIgner, the Court has, doubtless, lent a
valuable impulse tothe artistic culture Oh 'ne
Although passed twenty years ago, this act
has remained almost wholly a oeaa ietter.
Very few suits were brought under N-aG tne
Circuit, and, until the present, none nave oeen
carried to the Supreme Court.
The result has been that infringements OF
design patents have become almost universal.
No s5oner did q pattern, devised and intro
duced at great expense, become popularin the
market, than 1t was copied by other menufac-
turers, who thus, Without risk, and almost
without loss OF business consideration, enjoyed
the fruits Of the genius and enterprise of
others. This became at last q serious evil,
which seemed to threaten the very existence
Of American design, for no one could anord to
employ g corTs Of artists, and Incur the cost OF
bringing new goods into the market, If his
property in the result was open to be shared
by all the world.
This was the state of business which the Cor
ham Manufacturing Company undertook to
remedy. They were, as every one knows,
foremost among American silver.smiths for
the beauty and novelty Of their goods. Undis-
mayed BY the growing practice ofinfringement
which disgraced the trade, they kept q large
corps Of artists In their employ, whose business
decorations, These were, asa general rule,
copiedby others, and The Gorham Company
resolved t. See whether the law which had
promised item protection was adequate to
furnlsh them relief against this great and serl,
Gus mischief. They have carried on this good
aided saved by the moral support OF the trade,
and the decision OF the Supreme Court has at
last crowned their courage and endurance
with brilliant triumph. They selected, as the
around on which TO make their fight, the pat
ont for the design OF the well-kn0wn Cottage
Pattern of spoons and forks. The iniringers
called their goods the Gothic Pattern, and
andhad, also, q patent, but the Gorham Com
pany charged that this was an evident copy of
their design, varied only for the purpose Of
escaping the law. It was an additional grie-
vance In this case that the cottage goods
were in silver, while the imitation was In base
metal.
smiths Of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and
the: West, that the defendants goods were so
nearly like the plaintiffs that ordinary pur-
chasers wonld mistake the one for the other.
They further showed the great value OF their
design, which was pronounced by an eminent
which was estimated by another leading silver
smith to be, in his judgment, worth $4,000 at
least. And they called witnessesin the trade
who narrated OCCASIONS when they had actually
mistaken one pattern for the other.
None OF these facts were denied by the de-
fendants, who rested their case solely upon the
t.ct, not eo ooo Ssa y Si sse aossi 70 no Go% dessiT:
Of the two designs, which experts and persons
accustomed to look at silverware would certain
IN observe. And the question was thus fairly
raised whether 9 patent for q design was in
fringed II the infringer was clever enough to
produce upon the eye the same artistic effect,
scribed In the patent. The plaintiffs claimed
thst Il, to the eye OF the purchaser, the resem-
blsacs wss 10 close that the patterns we're the
same. then that, In Law, they must be deemed
che saue; while the defendants urged that it
was for SIperts and designers to determine the
IDENTITY Of the patterns.
Tbs csuse was heard in Newport in the Sum-
Q1Sk VI A06Vs w ~ Vow - -
were sustained by the opinion Of the Court.
This doctrine went to the root ofthe matter. |
Il It ware sound, design patents were OF no
value, Tor 1t Is always easy to vary the details
Of q work Of art, and yet preserve the same ar
tistic effect and the same results on the eye OF
the observer. To such q rule the Gorham Com
pany, and indeed, the fnea arts Of the country,
could not submit. And they therefore appeal
ed their cause to the Supreme Court. which
has lust decided 1t in their tavof. and has re-
Yersed the doctrine ofthe Court below.
The, value of the doctrine Of this decision to
the artistic progress of the country can scarce
" be overrated. Inventors o. designs now
stand on the same level with inventors OF ma
chimes. The beautiful arts may now 20 INTO
business and vie with their mechanical sisters
in. the successful pursuit Of wealth. 1t will
now become more than ever for the interests OF
the great nlyer-sniths to aim at the prodac-
ton Of new and varied compositions, end to
engage corps OF trained srtists to aid them in
their competition. Fostered and sustained by
the strong arm OF the Law, We may at length
See American manufactures as adj
mfrSble Tor their beauty as for their ingenuity.
For this important result the country must
thank the Gorham Manufacturing Company,
whose courage ard resolution have brought it
sbout.-[Advt.]