The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1872-12-10

in their employ, whose business it was to
devise new and beautiful forms and decora-
tions. These were, az a general rule,
copied by others, and the Gorham Com
pany resolved 10 see whether the law which
had promis, d them protection was adequate
to furnish them relief against this great
and serious michief. They have car
ried on this good fight for art
and their rights for SIX years, unaided
save by the moral support Of the
trade, and the decision of the Supreme Court
has at last crowned their courage and en-.
durance with brilliant triumph. They
selected, as the ground on which to make
their fig ut, the patent for the design of the
wel-known Cottage Pattern of spoons and
forks. The infringers called their goods
the Gothic Pattern, and had, also, patent,
but the Gorham Company 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
silver-smiths of New York, Philadelphia,
Boston and the West, that the defendants
goods were SO nearly like the plaintiffs
that ordinary purchasers would mistake
the one for the other. They further
showed the great value of their design.
which was pronounced by an eminent
dealer the best plain pattern he had ever
seen, and which was estimated by another
leading slver-smith to be, in his judgment,
worth $50, 900 at least. And they called
witnesses In the trade who narrated occa-
sions when they had actually mistaken one
pattern for the other.
None of these facts were denied by the
the defendants, who rested their case solely
upon the fact, not controverted by the
Gorham Company, that there were certain
differences in the details of the two de-
signs, which experts and persons accus-
toned to look at silyerware would certainly
observe. And the question was thus
fairly raised whether patent for design
was infringed if the iniringer was clever
enough to produce 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 close
that the patterns were the same, then that,
in law, they must be deemed the same
while the defendants urged that it was for
experts and designers to determine the
identity of the patterns.
The cause was heard in Newport in the
summer of 1870, and the views of the de-
fendants were sustained by the opinion Of
the court. r
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
same results on the eye Of the observer.
To such q rule the Gorham Company, and,
indeed, the fine arts Of the country, could
not submit. And they therefore appealed
their cause to the Supreme Court, which
has Just decided i in their favor, land has
reversed the doctrine of the Court below.
The value of the doctrine of this deci-
sion to the artistic progress OF the country
can scarcely be overrated. Inventors Of
designs now stand on the same level with
inventors of machines. 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
silversmiths to aim ut the production. of
new and varied compositions, and to engage
corps of trained artists to aid them IN their
competition. Fostered and sustained by
the strong arm of the law, we may at length
expect to see American manufactures as
admirable for their beauty as for their in
genuity.
For this important result the country
must thank the Gorham Manufacturing
Company, whose courage and resolution
have brought it about.