|
''Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.'', 376 U.S. 225 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case which limited state law on unfair competition when it prevents the copying of an item that is not covered by a patent. Justice Hugo Black wrote for a unanimous Court that the Constitution reserved power over intellectual property such as patents to the federal government exclusively. Since the trial court had found Stiffel's patent invalid as insufficiently inventive, its product design was thus in the public domain and no state law could be used to prevent Sears from copying it. The Supreme Court made a similar ruling in a companion case decided the same day, ''Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.'', 376 U.S. 234 (1964). These two cases were the first decisions of the Supreme Court that states could not, because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, create their own patent or patent-like laws. The issue had been raised, but not decided, in ''Gibbons v. Ogden'',〔22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 221 (1824)〕 in which Attorney General Wirt argued on behalf of the United States〔22 U.S. at 165-77.〕 for federal patent preemption of New York's grant of a steamboat patent to Robert Fulton.〔See (Ralph S. Brown, ''Product Simulation: A Right or a Wrong'' ), 64 1216, 1218 (1964). Brown commented that one of his colleagues had observed: "What a way to begin an opinion—'This case presents the question unresolved in ''Gibbons v. Ogden''.'" ''Id''. at 1218 n.6. Brown also notes that "the pretermission of the question" in ''Gibbons'' is discussed in the Brief for the United States as ''Amicus Curiae'' in ''Stiffel''. ''Id''.〕 ==Background== Stiffel Co. was a lamp manufacturer that had created a "pole lamp", which was a vertical tube standing upright between the floor and ceiling of a room, and with lamp fixtures along the outside of the tube. Stiffel Co. had secured a mechanical patent and a design patent, granted in 1957, on the pole lamp, and the lamp proved a "decided commercial success," according to the Supreme Court's opinion.〔''Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.'', 376 U.S. 225, 226 (1964).〕 Soon after Stiffel brought the pole lamp to market, the Sears, Roebuck & Co. department store put on the market copies of the lamp. Stiffel Co. brought suit against Sears, for patent infringement and for unfair competition under Illinois law, the latter claim based on Sears' allegedly causing confusion in the trade as to the source of the lamps. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, held the patents invalid for "want of invention," but ruled Sears to be guilty of unfair competition because the lamps were "confusingly similar," enjoined Sears from selling the identical lamps, and ordered an award of monetary damages to Stiffel Co.〔376 U.S. at 226.〕 The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that under Illinois law, Stiffel had only to prove that there was a "likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products" due to the identical appearance of the lamps.〔''Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.'', 313 F.2d 115 (7th Cir. 1962).〕 The U.S. Supreme Court granted ''certiorari'' to consider whether this use of a state's unfair competition law was compatible with U.S. patent law.〔376 U.S. at 226.〕 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「Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|