DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kanagaroo Kort
  HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Property
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 10--------------------------------------------------
       Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp
   DIR By: kangaroo
       Date: January 26, 2011, 6:07 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FACTS: P owns a corporation that manufactures silk dress
       patterns and puts out seasonal patters.  D copied one of the
       successful patterns and undercut P’s prices.  Thus, P asks the
       court for protection of its designs during the season in which
       its products are sold.
       Thread 1: Property
       -
       -
       property rights)—see limits of quasi property
       Thread 2: Policy Concerns
       -
       from common law)If competition is the issue, the courts
       will NOT suppress it.
       -
       PROCEDURAL FACTS: The Court of Appeals affirmed the District
       Court’s ruling and stated that because the bill could not
       succeed, it may be dismissed, if the defendant chooses.
       ISSUE:  Does one company have the lawful right to imitate
       another’s designs if the original is not patented?
       RULE:  Lacking a patent or statue of protection, a company’s
       property rights extend over its own product.  Thus the imitation
       of that product by another company is considered lawful.
       ANALYSIS:
       -
       should be protected from imitation at least during the season
       that it is on the market.  The copying of its product is not
       lawful and should be regulated.
       -
       -
       the original company a great power over his competitors.  This
       power is one in which the Constitution allows ONLY Congress to
       create.  One cannot be prevented from imitating a product if
       there is no patent or statute protecting it.
       CONCLUSION:  The Plaintiff’s product was not protected by law
       and therefore, the defendant was not acting unlawfully by
       imitating it.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1