he Sears/Compco Debate: Promoting Competition vs. Protecting the Original Product Design – USA Supreme court 1Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234 (1964). " The dispute in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. arose out of Sears' copying of a "pole lamp" that had been designed and successfully marketed by Stiffel Co. The Sears/Compco cases concerned state unfair competition claims that unpatented product designs had been copied by predatory competitors and "palmed off" as the originals." The Court forcefully presented its position on the value of copying: "Sharing in the goodwill of an article unprotected by patent or trademark is the exercise of a right possessed by all - and in the free exercise of which the consuming public is deeply interested. The battle lines were thus drawn. Favoring competition, the Court held in Sears/Compco that unpatented designs could be freely copied because they were left in the public domain. Favoring design protection, the plaintiffs alleged that their competitors had unfairly competed by palming off original designs as their own. The Court's decision rested on consideration of the strong competing values associated with copying. The Role of Intent in the Sears/Compco Decisions The "likelihood of confusion" test played an important analytical part in the Sears/Compco decisions. The Supreme Court focused on the factor of intent when applying the test. In Sears, for instance, the Court grudgingly allowed that "precautionary steps" such as labeling a product might be appropriate in some cases to "prevent customers from being misled as to the source. In Compco, a concurring Justice Harlan further opened the door for infringement relief by remarking that if copying is "undertaken with the dominant purpose and effect of palming off one's goods as those of another or of confusing customers as to the source of such goods, I see no reason why the State may not impose reasonable restrictions on the future copying itself.'' The Sears/Compco decisions thus presented an enigma: on one hand, the Court permitted copying and extolled the virtues of free competition; on the other hand, the Court condoned reasonable restrictions when copying is done with the intent of palming off one's goods as those of another Analise the mentioned case based on industrial protection of patents and unfair competition?
The Sears/Compco Debate: Promoting Competition vs. Protecting the Original Product Design – USA Supreme court
1Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234 (1964). " The dispute in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. arose out of Sears' copying of a "pole lamp" that had been designed and successfully marketed by Stiffel Co.
The Sears/Compco cases concerned state unfair competition claims that unpatented product designs had been copied by predatory competitors and "palmed off" as the originals." The Court forcefully presented its position on the value of copying: "Sharing in the goodwill of an article unprotected by patent or trademark is the exercise of a right possessed by all - and in the free exercise of which the consuming public is deeply interested.
The battle lines were thus drawn. Favoring competition, the Court held in Sears/Compco that unpatented designs could be freely copied because they were left in the public domain. Favoring design protection, the plaintiffs alleged that their competitors had unfairly competed by palming off original designs as their own. The Court's decision rested on consideration of the strong competing values associated with copying.
The Role of Intent in the Sears/Compco Decisions The "likelihood of confusion" test played an important analytical part in the Sears/Compco decisions. The Supreme Court focused on the factor of intent when applying the test. In Sears, for instance, the Court grudgingly allowed that "precautionary steps" such as labeling a product might be appropriate in some cases to "prevent customers from being misled as to the source. In Compco, a concurring Justice Harlan further opened the door for infringement relief by remarking that if copying is "undertaken with the dominant purpose and effect of palming off one's goods as those of another or of confusing customers as to the source of such goods, I see no reason why the State may not impose reasonable restrictions on the future copying itself.'' The Sears/Compco decisions thus presented an enigma: on one hand, the Court permitted copying and extolled the virtues of free competition; on the other hand, the Court condoned reasonable restrictions when copying is done with the intent of palming off one's goods as those of another
Analise the mentioned case based on industrial protection of patents and unfair competition?
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
