UNITED STATES

v.

KASINOWITZ ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976)
  …Compare, e. g., Spangler Candy Co. v. Crystal Pure Candy Co., supra, 353 F. 2d at 644; Roto-Rooter Corporation v. O’Neal, supra, 513 F. 2d at 45 — 46 with Sunbeam Lighting Co. v. Sunbeam Corporation, 183 F. 2d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 357, 95 L.Ed. 665 (1951); Everest & Jennings, Inc. v. E & J Manufacturing Co., 263 F. 2d 254, 260 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 902, 79 S.Ct. 1284, 3 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1959). The value of evidence of actual confusion is greater whe…
• Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Mfg. Co., Inc., 494 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1974)
  …to Patent Validity, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1169 (1964.)” Unlike the “average observer” test for novelty, obviousness is measured by the skill of the “ordinary designer.” Cavu Clothes, Inc. v. Squires, Inc., 184 F. 2d 30, 33 (6th Cir. 1950), cert, denied, 340 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 357, 95 L.Ed. 665 (1951); Forestek Plating & Mfg. Co. v. Knapp-Monarch Co., 106 F. 2d 554, 559 (6th Cir. 1939.)6 Even though a design is a combination of old elements, it may, nevertheless, be patentable if it would not be obvious to a de…
• HMH Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Brincat, 504 F.2d 713 (9th Cir. 1974)
  …the term “playboy” as applied to HMH’s products is neither fanciful nor arbitrary. Compare Polaroid Corp. v. Polaraid, Inc., 319 F. 2d 830 (7th Cir., 1963); Sunbeam Lighting Co. v. Sun [*718] beam Corp., 183 F. 2d 969 (9th Cir., 1950), cert. denied 340 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 357, 95 L.Ed. 665 (1951); Stork Restaurant v. Sahati, 166 F. 2d 348 (9th Cir., 1948). The word “playboy” was firmly established in the English language long prior to its use by HMH and has historically carried with it strong connotations o…