SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. V. STIFFEL CO.
376 U.S. 225 (1964)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the copying of a design of a pole lamp and
whether a State's unfair competition law can, consistently with the federal patent laws,
impose liability for or prohibit the copying of an article which is protected by neither a
federal patent nor a copyright.
FACTS: Stiffel (P) designed a pole lamp that proved to be a success. Sears (D) decided to
copy that success and introduced a similar looking design that sold for less. P sued D
claiming in its first count that by copying its design D had infringed P's patents and in
its second count that by selling copies of P's lamp D had caused confusion in the trade as
to the source of the lamps and had thereby engaged in unfair competition under Illinois law.
There was evidence that identifying tags were not attached to D's lamps although labels
appeared on the cartons in which they were delivered to customers, that customers had asked
P whether its lamps differed from D's, and that in two cases customers who had bought Pl
lamps had complained to P on learning that D was selling substantially identical lamps at a
much lower price. The patents were held invalid for want of invention. The court also found
that D's lamp was 'a substantially exact copy' of P's and that the two lamps were so much
alike, both in appearance and in functional details, 'that confusion between them is likely,
and some confusion has already occurred.' It then held D guilty of unfair competition,
enjoined D 'from unfairly competing with [P] by selling or attempting to sell pole lamps
identical to or confusingly similar to' Ps lamp, and ordered an accounting to fix profits
and damages resulting from P's 'unfair competition.' The Court of Appeals affirmed. To make
out a case of unfair competition under Illinois law, P had only to prove that there was a
'likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products' - that the two articles were
sufficiently identical that customers could not tell who had made a particular one.
Impressed by the 'remarkable sameness of appearance' of the lamps, the Court of Appeals
upheld the trial court's findings of likelihood of confusion and some actual confusion,
findings which the appellate court construed to mean confusion 'as to the source of the
lamps.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
