T. A. WILLSON & CO., Inc., v. HUDSON PRODUCTS CO.

T. A. WILLSON & CO., Inc., v. HUDSON PRODUCTS CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 13, 1918.) No. 154. Patents @=^328 — Invention—Design for Goggle Frame. The Bachman design patent, No. 43,514, for a design for a goggle frame, held void for lack of invention. <®=oFor other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Suit in equity, by T. A. Willson & Co., Incorporated, against the Hudson Products Company. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.' The following is the opinion of Mantón, District Judge, in the court below: Plaintiff sues for infringement of a design patent. Plaintiff is the present owner by assignment of letters patent No. 43,514, which were issued to Walter G. Bachman on February 11, 1913, for design for a goggle frame. The defendant is charged with manufacturing and selling goggles, the lenses of which are inserted in a goggle frame copied after the fashion and design of the plaintiff’s patent. The goggle frame is specified as: “Figure 1 is a front elevation showing the shape or configuration of the lens frames of the article of my new design, and Fig. 2 is a top or plan view showing the peculiar rear bowing of said lens frames, and which, in conjunction with the frontal formation of the said lens frames as shown in Fig. 1, define thereby main features of my said design invention.” And he says: “I claim the ornamental design for goggle frame, as shown and described.” From an examination of the exhibits in the case, I am of the opinion that this design patent does not disclose invention. What has been done, if anything, in the patent in suit, has been to vary slightly the shape and disposition of the goggle frame of the otherwise old designs of goggle frames. I think the design so nearly resembles the prior art that it is not entitled to consideration. There is nothing that indicates patentable invention. The bill will therefore be dismissed. T. D. Rambaut, of New York City (Arthur C. Fraser, of New York -City, of counsel, and Walter H. Stewart, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant. Frederick P. Randolph, of New York City (Joseph F. O’Brien, on the brief), for appellee. Before WARD and HOUGH, Circuit Judges, and LEARNED HAND, District Judge. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. Decree affirmed.