| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.
''Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.'', ( 376 U.S. 234 (1964). ) is a 1964 United States Supreme Court decision that was a companion case to Sears v. Stiffel, which the Court decided on the same day. Like ''Sears'', ''Compco'' held that state law that, in effect, duplicated the protections of the US patent laws was preempted by federal law.
==Background==
Day-Brite obtained a design patent on a lighting fixture, a cross-ribbed reflector for fluorescent light tubes. Compco’s predecessor copied the fixture and sold it in competition against Day-Brite. Day-Brite then sued for infringement of the design patent and unfair competition under Illinois state law, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The district court held the design patent invalid but ruled in Day-Brite’s favor on the unfair competition claim.〔376 U.S. at 235.〕 The court found that the overall appearance of Compco's fixture was "the same, to the eye of the ordinary observer, as the overall appearance" of Day-Brite's fixture, which embodied the design of the invalidated design patent; that the appearance of Day-Brite's design had "the capacity to identify () in the trade, and does in fact so identify () to the trade"; that the concurrent sale of the two products was "likely to cause confusion in the trade"; and that "()ctual confusion has occurred."〔376 U.S. at 235.〕 Accordingly, the court ordered Compco to pay damages and enjoined its further sale of the fixture.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment.〔376 U.S. at 236.〕 It found that "several choices of ribbing were apparently available to meet the functional needs of the product," yet Compco "chose precisely the same design used by the plaintiff and followed it so closely as to make confusion likely."〔376 U.S. at 236.〕 The only evidence of confusion was testimony by a Day-Brite employee that a third party plant manager had installed some of Compco's fixtures and later mistakenly asked Day-Brite to service the fixtures, thinking they had been made by Day-Brite. There was evidence that Compco clearly labeled its fixtures and their containers with Compco’s name. The Supreme Court characterized this evidence as showing that Compco sold an article that was an exact copy of another unpatented article, and that the conduct was “likely to produce, and did in this case produce, confusion as to the source of the article.”〔376 U.S. at 237.〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|