Bliss

In this action for infringement of Bliss Design Patent D-174,793, covering a design for a pitcher, joined with a claim of unfair competition, plaintiffs, the appellants here, appeal from the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division holding invalid and not infringed the said patent and further holding that neither of the appellees have competed unfairly with the appellants.

The District Court had jurisdiction of appellants’ first claim or cause of action by virtue of Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338 (a).

Judge Solomon, of the District Court of Oregon, sitting in the Southern District of New York, in Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastic Company, 189 F.Supp. 333, 337 , held that the patent under consideration here was invalid for want of invention and for lack of ornamental design. The Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit agreed. Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Co., 294 F.2d 694 .

The following quotations from the opinion of the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in that case, p. 696 of 294 F.2d well express the views we have formed after consideration of the testimony and exhibits before' us as to validity of Design…