Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Graffius v. Weather-Seal

165 F.2d 782

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1948-01-26
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellant, herein called plaintiff, brought suit against appellees, herein called defendants. The complaint contains seventy-three counts, each of which avers a separate cause of action. That portion of the statute alleged to-have been violated is the third paragraph of Sec. 4901 R.S., Title 35, U.S.C.A., § 50/gen-erally called the “False Marking” statute.1 It will be observed from the portion of the statute which we have italicized, that, to prove a violation thereof, the plaintiff is required to show, by the weight of the evidence, (1) that there is a false marking upon, or affixation to, an unpatented article of the word “patent” or any word importing that the same is patented, (2) for the purpose of deceiving the public. The case was heard without the intervention of a jury and at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the court, following Federal *783Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, dismissed the case upon motion of the defendants.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Graffius v. Weather-Seal. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
GRAFFIUS v. WEATHER-SEAL,165 F.2d 782(6th Cir. 1948)
GRAFFIUS v. WEATHER-SEAL et al.
No. 10517.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 26, 1948.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division; Frank Le Blond Kloeb, Judge.

Action by Russell O. Graffius against Weather-Seal and Weather-Seal Manufacturing Company to recover penalty for alleged violation of the "false marking" statute, 35 U.S.C.A. § 50. From judgment dismissing case upon defendants' motion, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

See also, D.C.,7 F.R.D. 125.
Scott A. Belden and Charles F. Schnee, both of Akron, Ohio, for appellant.

Albert L. Ely, of Akron, Ohio (Albert L. Ely, Ely Frye, Bruce W. Bierce, and Brouse, McDowell, May, Bierce Wortman, all of Akron, Ohio, on the brief), for appellees.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, herein called plaintiff, brought suit against appellees, herein called defendants. The complaint contains seventy-three counts, each of which avers a separate cause of action.

That portion of the statute alleged to have been violated is the third paragraph of Sec. 4901 R.S., Title 35, U.S.C.A., § 50, generally called the "False Marking" statute.1

It will be observed from the portion of the statute which we have italicized, that, to prove a violation thereof, the plaintiff is required to show, by the weight of the evidence, (1) that there is a false marking upon, or affixation to, an unpatented article of the word "patent" or any word importing that the same is patented, (2) for the purpose of deceiving the public.

The case was heard without the intervention of a jury and at the close of the plaintiff's evidence the court, following FederalPage 783Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, dismissed the case upon motion of the defendants. Hence this appeal.

The court found that there was no evidence that the particular frames, window frames or door frames, that are covered in the first seventy-two causes of action, were ever impressed with a print that conveyed a message to the public that these particular articles were patented; and it made a similar finding with reference to the particular items set forth in the seventy-third cause of action.

The court found as a fact — "No testimony was offered by plaintiff which established that any of the doors or windows manufactured by defendant Weather-Seal Manufacturing Company has been marked `patented' with the intent to deceive the public."

An examination of the record discloses that these findings are not "clearly erroneous" and we are not authorized, therefore, to set them aside. Rule52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We must give due regard to the opportunity of the District Court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.

Laying other questions presented to one side, the findings dispose of the appeal, and the decree appealed from is affirmed.
  1. "* * * Who, in any manner, marks upon or affixes toanyunpatented article the word `patent,' or any word importing thatthe same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public,shall be liable, for every such offense, to a penalty of not less than $100, with costs; one-half of said penalty to the person who shall sue for the same, and the other to the use of the United States, to be recovered by suit in any district court of the United States within whose jurisdiction such offense may have been committed." (Italics ours.) ↩