Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp.

Facts

Cheney Brothers, a corporation, made silks. Each season it put out many new patterns meant to draw buyers by their novelty and beauty. Not much more than a fifth caught the public fancy, and a pattern usually lasted no more than a single season of eight or nine months. The court recited that it was in practice impossible, and would be very onerous even if it were not, to get design patents (government grants of exclusive rights in a design) on all of them. It also recited that the Copyright Office authorities held the designs could not be copyrighted. So anyone could easily copy the successful ones. Doris Silk Corporation copied one of the popular designs in the season beginning in October, 1928, and undercut Cheney's price. Doris Silk denied that it knew the design was Cheney's. Because the parties wanted a decision on the equity of the bill (whether the complaint stated a ground for relief in equity), the court accepted the allegation and charged the defendant with knowledge. Cheney asked for protection only during the season. It claimed no right at common law or under the statutes.

Issues

1. Without a patent, a copyright or any other recognized right, can a silk maker stop a competitor, charged with knowledge, from copying its designs during the season for which it seeks protection?
2. Did International News Service v. Associated Press lay down a general doctrine that protects against copying beyond situations like the printed news dispatches in that case?

Holding

Cheney's bill stood on no legal right and failed. Without a recognized right at common law or under the statutes, Cheney's property was limited to the chattels that embodied its designs, so copying a design, even with knowledge, was not actionable. International News Service, read as limited to situations substantially similar to its own, was no controlling authority to the contrary. Whether to create any temporary right was for Congress.