Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
35 F.2d 279 (1929)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In the absence of a recognized statutory right, such as a patent or copyright, a creator's property is limited to the physical chattel embodying their design, and competitors may imitate that design at their pleasure. Courts will not create a common-law cause of action for misappropriation of unpatented or uncopyrighted designs.

Facts:

Cheney Bros. is a silk manufacturer that produces many new, novel patterns each season.
The commercial life of these patterns is very short, typically lasting only a single season of eight to nine months.
It is impractical to secure design patents or copyrights on all the patterns, and most would likely not qualify for such protection.
Doris Silk Corp. copied one of Cheney Bros.' most popular silk designs from the 1928 season.
Doris Silk Corp. sold fabric with the copied design at a price lower than Cheney Bros.' original.

Procedural Posture:

Cheney Bros. brought a suit in equity in the U.S. District Court, seeking an injunction to stop Doris Silk Corp. from copying its design.
The trial court denied Cheney Bros.' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Cheney Bros. (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a manufacturer have a common-law property right in its unpatented and uncopyrighted designs sufficient to prevent a competitor from copying them?

Opinions:

Majority - L. Hand, Circuit Judge.

No. In the absence of statutory protection, a person's property interest is limited to the physical articles they create, not the design itself, and others are free to imitate that design. The court reasoned that creating a common-law property right in a design would be tantamount to creating a judicial patent or copyright, which would "flagrantly conflict" with the comprehensive legislative scheme Congress has established for intellectual property. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in International News Service v. Associated Press, holding that its ruling was a narrow exception limited to the specific facts of misappropriating 'hot news' and did not establish a broad, general-purpose doctrine against unfair competition through imitation. Judge Hand emphasized that the power to create such monopolies rests with the legislative branch (Congress), which is better equipped to evaluate the broad economic consequences, not the judiciary.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a foundational principle in intellectual property law, firmly rejecting the creation of a federal common law of misappropriation for industrial designs. It significantly limited the potential reach of the INS v. AP doctrine, confining it to its specific context and preventing it from becoming a general prohibition against copying. The case reinforces the supremacy of the statutory patent and copyright schemes, underscoring the principle of judicial restraint and deference to Congress in the field of intellectual property. Consequently, creators of designs not protected by statute are left without a remedy against direct copying, channeling them towards the existing, albeit sometimes cumbersome, legislative frameworks.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp. (1929)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature