Document: 376 U.S. 234 84 S.Ct. 779 11 L.Ed.2d 669 COMPCO CORP., Petitioner,v.DAY-BRITE LIGHTING, INC. No. 106. Argued Jan. 16, 1964. Decided March 9, Rehearing Denied April 20, See 377 913, 1162. Jerome F. Fallon, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Owne J. Ooms, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 As in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 225, 784, question here is whether use a state unfair competition law to give relief against copying an unpatented industrial design conflicts with federal patent laws. Both Compco and Day-Brite are manufacturers fluorescent lighting fixtures kind widely used offices stores. 1955 secured from Patent Office on reflector having cross-ribs claimed both strength attractiveness fixture. also sought, but was refused, mechanical same device. After had begun selling its fixture, Compco's predecessor1 began making very similar Day-Brite's. This action then brought by Day-Brite. One count alleged that infringed Day-Brite's patent; second charged public trade come associate this particular Day-Brite, copied distinctive so as confuse deceive purchasers into thinking were actually Day-Brite's, doing unfairly competed The complaint prayed accounting injunction. 2 District Court held invalid; count, while court did not find engaged any deceptive or fraudulent practices, it hold been guilty under Illinois law. found overall appearance fixture 'the same, eye ordinary observer, appearance' reflector, which embodied invalidated capacity identify (Day-Brite) does fact (it) trade'; concurrent sale two products 'likely cause confusion '(a)ctual has occurred.' On these findings adjudged fixtures, ordered account damages, enjoined 'from competing plaintiff attempted reflectors identical to, confusingly to' those made Appeals there substantial evidence record support Court's finding likely sufficient holding law.2 311 F.2d 26. Although such finding, appellate observed 'several choices ribbing apparently available meet functional needs product,' yet 'chose precisely followed closely make likely.' F.2d, at 30. A identifies maker trade, held, 'protectable' right law, even though unpatentable.3 We granted certiorari. 374 825, 83 1868, 10 1050. 3 To likelihood actual confusion, trial able refer only one circumstance record. plant manager who installed some later asked service they There no testimony given purchaser anyone else customer ever misled, deceived, 'confused,' is, bought All shows, instance cited court, plant, three years repairs needed, viewing fixtures—hung least 15 feet above floor arranged end continuous line identifying marks hidden—thought them.4 Not incident suggestive after purchase made, considerable care taken prevent including clearly labeling containers shipped through manufacturers' representatives handled lines. 4 Notwithstanding thinness among purchasers, we do necessary case determine 'clear error' findings. They, like based wholly article exact copy another produce source article. Even accepting findings, order damages injunction conflict Today have when unprotected copyright, may forbid others would interfere policy, Art. I, § 8, cl. Constitution implementing statutes, allowing free access whatever copyright laws leave domain. Here be entitled patent. Under therefore, domain can every detail whoever pleases. It true configuration identified because arrangement had, trademark, acquired 'secondary meaning' associated But if other statutory protection, will. 5 said State prohibiting articles, stand way decisional, requires sell copies take precautions their own. course power impose liability upon who, knowing relying original manufacturer's reputation quality integrity, palming off original. That could way, 'nonfunctional' essential either article, 'confusion' maker, relevant applying State's requiring labeling; however, regardless copier's motives, neither facts nor furnish basis imposing acts selling. Cf. Kellogg National Biscuit 305 111, 120, 59 109, 114, L.Ed. 73 (1938). And cannot copier accountable failure label otherwise his goods unless violation valid decisional customers goods.5 6 Since judgment below forbids orders copying, stand. 7 Reversed. 8 HARLAN, concurring result.* 9 In respect I States m re leeway 'copying' cases than opinions allow. If found, inference arising mere act undertaken dominant purpose effect one's confusing goods, see reason why reasonable restrictions future itself. Vindication paramount interest stake require tolerate specifically oriented predatory business practices. Apart this, am accord Court, concur judgments since presents point myself disagreement. sales Da -Brite complained Mitchell Lighting Company. However, time filed, Compco, therefore defendant petitioner here. For simplicity shall throughout transactions sought liable predecessor company, Mitchell. affirmed invalid. No review ruling stated U.S., p. 228, S.Ct., 786, n. 2, decide correct statement about epresentative climbed up forklift truck look fixtures. called witness. pointed out Stiffel, 232, 789, showing * (This applies 784.)

Category: 7