35 F.2d 279 (2d Cir. 1929)
The plaintiff Cheney Brothers is a corporation that manufactures silks and each season creates many new patterns designed to attract purchasers by their novelty and beauty. Only slightly more than one fifth of the patterns succeed in catching the public fancy, and they have only a short life of no more than a single season lasting eight or nine months.1
It is impossible in practice to secure design patents upon all the patterns, and it would be very onerous to do so even if feasible because it cannot be known in advance which patterns will sell well. Most of the patterns probably lack the originality needed to support a design patent. The Copyright Office holds that the patterns cannot be copyrighted under the Copyright Act.2
Taking advantage of this situation, the defendant Doris Silk Corporation copied one of the plaintiff's popular designs in the season beginning in October 1928 and sold it at a lower price than the plaintiff charged. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant knew the design was the plaintiff's.3
The plaintiff filed a bill seeking protection for its designs only during the season. The parties asked the court for a decision on the equity of the bill, and the matter reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit after an order in the district court.4
Whether a silk manufacturer has any property right in its seasonal patterns that entitles it to relief against copying by a competitor in the absence of a design patent or copyright?5
In the absence of some recognized right at common law, or under the statutes, a man’s property is limited to the chattels which embody his invention. Others may imitate these at their pleasure.6
No. The plaintiff Cheney Brothers manufactures silks and creates many new patterns each season.7
It is impossible in practice to secure design patents on all of them.8
The Copyright Office holds that they cannot be copyrighted.9
The defendant Doris Silk Corporation copied one of the successful patterns from the season beginning in October 1928 and sold it at a lower price.10
Because the plaintiff secured no patent or copyright and claims no other recognized right, its property extends only to the physical silks it sells, leaving competitors free to imitate the designs.11
A silk manufacturer has no property right in its seasonal patterns that entitles it to relief against copying by a competitor in the absence of a design patent or copyright.12
Whether the holding of International News Service v. Associated Press extends to protect ephemeral product designs such as the plaintiff's silk patterns?13
The decision in International News Service v. Associated Press is limited to situations substantially similar to news dispatches and does not create a general common-law patent or copyright for other subject matters.14
No. Although the language of the majority opinion in International News Service might appear broad enough to cover product designs, the court confined that holding to facts involving printed news dispatches.15
The court declined to establish a common-law monopoly in designs that would conflict with the patent and copyright statutes enacted by Congress.16
The present case concerns ephemeral silk patterns rather than news, so the precedent does not apply and supplies no basis for relief.17
The holding of International News Service v. Associated Press does not extend to protect ephemeral product designs such as the plaintiff's silk patterns.18