Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
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.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co