Republic Molding Corporation v. B.W. Photo Utilities
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
319 F.2d 347 (1963)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Republic Molding Corporation (Republic) (plaintiff) developed a plastic vegetable bin. Republic patented its design for the bin and marketed the bin under the trademark Polly-Flex. Before filing its patent application for Polly-Flex, Republic marketed Polly-Flex with advertisements falsely stating that a patent was pending for the design. B. W. Photo Utilities (B. W. Photo) (defendant) and Alladin Plastics, Inc. (Alladin) (defendant) marketed substantially similar products. Republic filed a claim for unfair competition against B. W. Photo, and later filed claims for patent infringement and copyright infringement. Republic also filed claims against Alladin for patent infringement and unfair competition, as well as copyright infringement for copying a copyrighted advertisement. Republic alleged that the Polly-Flex trademark had obtained a secondary meaning and that B. W. Photo’s and Alladin’s marketing confused customers. B. W. Photo and Alladin asserted the defense of unclean hands, arguing that Republic’s advertisements of Polly-Flex, which falsely claimed a patent was pending, were intended to create a secondary meaning and prevent competition. The trial court found that Republic’s advertisements were intended to discourage competition and held Republic’s claims were barred because of Republic’s unclean hands. The trial court did not find, nor was there evidence, that anyone decided not to market products similar to Polly-Flex because Republic’s advertisement stated a patent was pending. Republic appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Merrill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
