210 F. 560 | W.D. Pa. | 1914
This is a motion for a preliminary injunction. The bill filed alleges infringement of plaintiff’s reissue patent No. 13,542, and also alleges unfair competition, in that the plaintiffs have established a trade in acetylene lamps among the coal miners of this and adjoining districts, which lamps are of a peculiar and distinctive form, and are known to the trade as Baldwin lamps, and'that said lamps, together with an extra carbide container and printed sheet of instructions in English and different foreign languages, and a needle
After a careful examination of plaintiff’s patent and the evidence tending to show infringement, we are in doubt as to plaintiff’s right to relief at this time upon that ground. The question of the validity of plaintiff’s patent may well await the final hearing, as the patent has not yet been adjudicated. A. final hearing under the new rules of the Supreme Court can be, and ought to be, reached in the near future.
As to the other question, that of unfair competition. Tlie evidence in this case convinces us that plaintiff, at the expense of much effort and money, established a large trade among coal miners for its patented lamp. This trade was only established by plaintiff’s agents coming in contact with the individual coal miners who needed and used a miner’s lamp. These persons were largely men of limited education and of alien language and habits. After they became accustomed to the use of plaintiff’s lamp they would naturally continue-the use, and this, together with the influence their use of it had upon associates by force of example, which would induce them in turn to use the same lamp, constituted a large and valuable trade among the miners of this and neighboring states. Being persons of limited intelligence, and probably of not close observation, as well as being unacquainted with the English language, they would depend upon thé shape of the lamp to guide them in purchasing.' The plaintiff’s lamp, known as the Baldwin lamp to the trade, is of the hour-glass shape, and readily distinguishable thereby. The defendant’s lamp is identical in shape. It is not only identical in shape, but all its accessories bear such a close resemblance to the Baldwin lamp that it requires very careful inspection and examination to detect even a slight difference. It appears from the evidence that the ordinary purchaser would be easily deceived by the similarity of appearance of the Baldwin and- Grier lamps, and purchase the Grier lamp believing he was purchasing the Baldwin, unless he had both lamps in view at once so that he could read the names upon them. The deception is added to when we find that the lamps are packed by the defendant in a pasteboard box resembling in size and shape the plaintiff’s box; the only distinguishing feature being the printed matter on each. There is contained in the defendant’s box with the lamp' an extra holder, the small needle on a tin tag to clean the lamp, with a'
The defense that the spark igniter attached to defendant’s lamp caused the sale of the lamp is not convincing. No doubt it aided the defendant in more easily getting the trade because it was a useful addition to the Baldwin lamp. The foundation, however, of the trade had been laid by the plaintiff for the Baldwin lamp, and, as the evidence shows, almost 1,000,000 of the lamps were sold. This trade thus established belonged to the plaintiff.
After a careful and thorough consideration of the evidence, we are satisfied that the defendant has been guilty of unfair competition, and he should be restrained until the final hearing of the case for that reason.
Bet an order for a preliminary injunction issue in accordance with this opinion.
