Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-12-14
An Important Decision Relating to
the Future Of the Fine Arts.

An Important Decision Relating to
the Future Of the Fine Arts.
In the decision of the suit of the Gorham
Manufacturing Company vs.. Whit, the
Supreme Court of the United States has
rendered signal and important service to
the progress of the fine arts. BY the stat
ute of 1912, Congress authorized the COM
missioner TO grant letters patent to those
"whose industry, genius, efforts, and ex-
pense" should produce new designs for
printing, statues, bas relieves; in short, for
all forms of ornamentation. It was the in
tent of this act that the art of decoration
should enjoy the fostering care and protee-
ton which has conferred such conspicuous
benefits upon the American inventions in
the mechanic arts; and is constituting this
law in such manner as to give practical
protection to the designer, tbs Court has,
doubtless, lent valuable impulse to the
artistic culture of the country.
Although passed twenty years ago, this
act has remained almost wholly dead let
ter. Very few suits were brought under it
at the Circuit, and, until the present., no ne
have been carried to the Supreme Court.
The result has been that infringements
of design patents have become almost uni
versal. No sooner did a pattern,
devised and introduced at great expense,
| become popular in the market, than it was
! copied by other manufacturers, 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 a serious evil, which
| seemed to threaten the very existence of
| American design, for no one could afford to
employ a corpsi6 artists, aud incur the
cost of bringing new goods into the market,
if his property 10 the.result was open to be
| shared by all the world.
This was the state of the business which
the Gorham Manufacturing Company un-
| deTtook to remedy. They were, as every
one knows, foremost among American sill
veT-smiths for the beauty and novelty of
their goods. Undismayed by the growing
practice of Infringement which disgraced
the trade, they KEEP large corps of artists
in their employ, whose business it was to
devise new and beautiful forms and deco
rations. These were, as a general rule,
copied by others, and the Gorham Com
pany resolved to see whether the law which
had promised them protection was adequate
to furnish them relief against this great
and serious mischief. They have carried on
this good fight for art and their rights
for six years, unaidsd sava 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 ground on
which to make their fight, the patent for
the design of the well-knOWn Cottage Pat
tern of spoons and forks. The infringers
called their goods the Gothic Pattern, and
had, also, g patent, but the GOrhani Com
pany charged that this was an evident copy
of their design, varied only for the purpose
OF escaping the law. 1t was an additional
grievance in this case that the cottage goods
were in silver, while the imitation was in
base metal.
They proved, by nearly all the leading
silversmiths Of New York, Philadelphia, |
Boston, and the West, that the defendants |
goods we're so nearly like the plaintiffs that |
ordinary purchasers would mistake the ons
for the other. They further showed the !
great value of their design, which was pro-
nounced by an eminent dealer the BEST plain |
pattern he had ever seen, and which was |
estimated by another leading silversmith to |
be, in his judgment, worth $4,000 at least.
Aud they called witnesses in the trade who
narrated occasions when they had actually
mistaken one pattern for the other.
None Of these facts were denied by the
defendants, who rested their case solely !
upon the fact, lot controverted by the Cor
ham Company, that there were certain diff
ferences in the details of the two designs,
which experts and persons accustomed to
look at silverware would certainly observe.
And the question was thus fairly raised
whether patent for design was infringed
if the infringer was clever enough to proc
duce upon the eye the same artistic effect,
and yet vary, from the details shown and
described in the patent. The plaintiffs
claimed that if, to the eye Of the purchaser,
the resemblance was so clese that the pat
terms were the same, then that, in law, they
must be deemed the same; while the de-
PENDANTS urged that it was for experts and
designers to determine the idertity of the
patterns,
The cause was heard in Newport in the
summer of 1870, and the views of the de-
PENDANTS were sustained by the opinion OF
the court.
This doctrine went to the root of the
matter. If it were sound, design patents
were of no value, for it is always easy to
vary the details Of work OF art, and yet
preserve the same artistic effect and the
SAINT results Oh bno eye Va b-to OOoCANCt. !
To such a rule the Gorham Company, and,
indeed, the fine arts Of the country, could
not submit. And they therefore sp- ,
pealed their cause to the Supreme Court,
which has Just decided it 10 their favor, and :
has reversed the doctrine of the court be-
ow.
The value of the doctrine Of this decision
10 the artistic progress of the country can {
scarcely be overrated. Inventors ofdesigns
now stand on the same level with invent
RS of machines. The beautiful arts may
now go into business and vie with their
mechanical sisters in the successful pursuit [
IF wealth. 1t viii now become more than
ever for the interest Of the great silver
smiths to aim at the production of new and
7aried compositions, and TO engage corps
If trained artists to aid them in their com
,elitioD. Fostered and sustained by the
trong arm of the law, we may at length
.xpect to see American manufactures as
admirable for their beauty as for their inge
luity. .
For this important result the country
must thank the Gorham Manufacturing {
Company, whose courage and resolution
ahnuf