Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ESDORN v. BROOKLYN MOULDING CO.

March 21, 1934

ESDORN et al.
v.
BROOKLYN MOULDING CO., Inc.; SAME v. M. GREENSPAN & CO., Inc.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CAMPBELL

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

The two above-entitled suits were brought by the same plaintiffs against different defendants, for alleged infringement of the same patent, and by consent were tried together.

The above-entitled suits are based upon patent No. 1,902,769, issued to John H. Esdorn, for Store Fixture Display Moulding, dated March 21, 1933, on an application filed February 18, 1932.

 The plaintiff John H. Esdorn is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state of New York, and the Southern District thereof, and the patentee and owner of the patent in suit; the plaintiff Esdorn Lumber Corporation is a New York corporation, having a place of business in the Southern District thereof, and manufactures moulding of the type disclosed in the patent in suit, with the permission of the patentee.

 The defendant Brooklyn Moulding Company, Inc., in the first above-entitled suit, is a New York corporation, with its place of business at Richmond Hill, in the borough of Queens in this district, and has since the issuance of the patent and receiving notice thereof from the plaintiffs, and prior to and at the time of the filing of the said suit, sold price tag display moulding like Plaintiffs' Exhibits 2 and 3.

 The defendant M. Greenspan & Co., Inc., in the second above-entitled suit, is a New York corporation, with its place of business at 1105 Metropolitan avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y., in this district, and has since the issuance of the patent and the receiving notice thereof from the plaintiffs, and prior to and at the time of the filing of the said suit, sold price tag display moulding like Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5.

 Mouldings have been made in so many styles that surprise was expressed by a practical man, called as a witness, that a patent for moulding could be secured.

 The moulding of the patent in suit is adapted to use for ornamental or useful purposes, but particularly for use as store furniture, and capable of being mounted vertically, horizontally, or at an angle, and presenting a pleasing appearance and mechanical means for holding tickets or display cards in desired positions.

 The invention has another object, that is, to provide a moulding for receiving tags, tickets, display cards, and the like, in which the card is held bowed outwardly.

 Another more specific object is to provide a moulding having a centrally arranged groove formed in an outwardly extending raised portion, with an overhanging shoulder at each edge of the moulding, so that a ticket or card placed beneath the overhanging shoulders, and resting on the outwardly extending portion of the moulding, will span the groove in such a way as to permit the card to be readily removed by placing a nail or other instrument beneath the card.

 A further object is to provide such a moulding for cards, etc., which presents means, when in different positions, for straddling a shelf or for engaging an irregular surface, so that the moulding may be arranged and function efficiently as a crown, pilaster, or shelf edge.

 The invention claimed by the plaintiffs, as I understand it, consists in providing a moulding of such contour that the price tags held therein are in a convex rather than a concave position, and in which the price tags are held by the pressure outwardly in the middle, by the central projecting portion of the moulding, and inwardly on both sides by the pressure of the under faces of the beads against the outer face of the price tag adjacent the upper and lower ends, and in which there is an inwardly projecting groove in the centrally projecting portion.

 These suits are each based upon the three claims of the patent, of which claim 1 may be taken as typical, and reads as follows: "1. A moulding formed of a relatively long narrow strip of material, said strip having marginal beads at its opposite longitudinal edges, and an outwardly projecting portion arranged centrally between the beads, the beads having each an angular notch undercut therein, said outwardly extending portion having an inwardly projecting groove formed in the exposed face thereof, a pair of diverging surfaces extending from the opposite edges of the groove to form each one of the sides of the angular notch in the respective beads."

 The disadvantages of the concave moulding and the advantages of the convex moulding for the purpose of store fixture display moulding ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.