As a community service, an educational series by the

IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.

Copyright 2010 The IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq. All Rights Reserved.

Return to Index of Tour of US Supreme Court Patent Cases from 1961 to 1999

HOLDING: (1) An unpatented article is in the public domain and can be copied in every detail. (2) State law may require labeling or other precautions to prevent confusion of customers. (3) The following are relevant evidence on the state law claim: the copied unpatented article could be made in some other way, the design is "nonfunctional" or not essential to the use, "secondary meaning" and actual "confusion."

COMPCO CORP. v. DAY-BRITE LIGHTING, 376 U.S. 234 (March 9, 1964)

 

FACTS: Compco marketed an exact copy of the not validly patented lighting fixture cover by Day-Brite. There was one dubious instance of post sale confussion. Day-Brite sued Compco under state unfair competition law. The trial court was reversed in holding Compco liable.

Tour of US Supreme Court Patent Cases from 1961 to 1999

***

A Fast and Easy Way to Learn the High Points of Patent Law and Related Anti-trust Law

Community Service and

Pro Bono

In addition to this education series, Mr. Hoffenberg gives of his time to benefit the community and contribute to the quality justice in the State of California. For many years, he served as a volunteer pro tem in the Municipal Court in traffic, landlord-tenant, small claims and short cause matters. Currently, Mr. Hoffenberg serves as a volunteer arbitrator for the Dispute Resolution Service in attorney-client fee disputes and as a quasi-volunteer mediator in the Court of Appeals.