Fountain pen articles

Monday, September 10, 2012

Legal cases


Thank you very, very much to George Kovalenko, who sorted out the mess of a previous page that I had here. Links on the name of the parties is to Federal Register (Google Books).

AMERICAN FOUNTAIN PEN CO. (MOORE)
  • William F. Cushman v. Atlantis Fountain Pen Co., No. 406, Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts, 164 F. 94; 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5290, July 23, 1908.

AMERICAN LEAD PENCIL CO.
  • Eagle Pencil Co. v. American Lead Pencil Co., Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 53 F. 388; 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2036, December 17, 1892.

ATLANTIS FOUNTAIN PEN CO.
  • Cushman v. Atlantis Fountain Pen Co. et al. No. 406, Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts 164 F. 94; 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5290, July 23, 1908.

BARRETT, C. E.
  • Walter A. Sheaffer v. C. E. Barrett, et al, US District Ct, Northern District of Ill., EasternDivision, in Equity, No. 348, 124 Monadnock Block, Chicago, Feb 11, 1915.

BOSTON
  • Brandt v. Louis K. Liggett Co., No. 394, District Court, D. Massachusetts, 212 F. 187; 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1024, March 21, 1914.


BRANDT, CHARLES


  • Brandt v. Louis K. Liggett Co., No. 394, District Court, D. Massachusetts, 212 F. 187; 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1024, March 21, 1914.


CARTER

  • Crocker Pen Co. v. Carter, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, 170 N.Y.S. 1074; 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5273, May 8, 1918.


CAW’S (BROWN)

  • Francis C. Brown v. Daniel W. Lapham and Francis H. Bogart, Second Circuit, Southern District of New York, Reports of the Circuit Courts, vol. 23, p.475, Apr 1, 1886, Denied.
  • Wirt v. Brown, Circuit Court, E. D. New York, 32 F. 283, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2752, September 19, 1887.
  • MacKinnon Pen Co. et al, applts., v. Fountain Ink Co. et al, respts., N. Y. Superior Court, General Term, decided Dec 4, 1882, in New York Weekly Digest, vol. 16, pp.422-23.
  • MacKinnon Pen Co. v. Fountain Ink Co., [No Number in Original], Court of Appeals of New York, 93 N.Y. 658; 1883 N.Y. LEXIS 378, October 16, 1883, Argued, October 26, 1883, Decided, Decision Without Published Opinion.

CONKLIN
  • Conklin Pen Co. v. Bowles, Price Administrator, No. 243, United States Emergency Court of Appeals, 152 F.2d 764; 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 1863, at Chicago November 30, 1945, Heard, Jan. 11, 1946, Decided.

CRAIG, HARVEY G.
  • Walter A. Sheaffer v. C. E. Barrett, et al, US District Ct, Northern District of Ill., Eastern Division, in Equity, No. 348, 124 Monadnock Block, Chicago, Feb 11, 1915.

CROCKER
  • Crocker Pen Co. v. Carter, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, 170 N.Y.S. 1074; 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5273, May 8, 1918.

CROMER AIRCRAFT
  • W. A. Sheaffer v. Cromer Aircraft Pen Co. Inc., W. A. Sheaffer, violation of patent 1118240 for fountain pens, D. C. N. D. Ala. (Birmingham) Doc. E 480, Injunction granted June 2, 1928.

CROSS
  • Cross v. MacKinnon, Circuit Court, S. D. New York, March 8, 1882. 
  • Cross v. Livermore, Circuit Court, District of Rhode Island, 9 F. 607; 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2056, 1881.

CUSHMAN

  • Cushman v. Atlantis Fountain Pen Co. et al. No. 406, Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts 164 F. 94; 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5290, July 23, 1908.

DUNN
  • People ex rel. Dunn Pen Co. v. Wilcox, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division First Depart, 203 A.D. 887; 196 N.Y.S. 945; 1922 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7841, November 1922.
  • Dunn v. L. E. Waterman Co., District Court, S.D. New York, 22 F. Supp. 543; 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1204, November 24, 1937.

EAGLE PENCIL CO.
  • Eagle Pencil Co. v. American Lead Pencil Co., Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 53 F. 388; 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 2036, December 17, 1892.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Eagle Pencil Co., District Court, S.D. New York, 55 F.2d 420; 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1953, December 3, 1931.

ECLIPSE (FINSTONE)
  • Parker Pen Co. v. Finstone, District Court, S.D. New York, 7 F.2d 753; 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1276, July 24, 1925.

ESTERBROOK
  • The Morse Fountain Pen Company vs. The Esterbrook Steel Pen Manufacturing Company. In Equity. Case No. 9,862, Circuit Court, D. New Jersey, 17 F. Cas. 875; 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1336; 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 515, March 1869.
  • Washington Medallion Pen Co. v. Esterbrook, Case No. 17,246a, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 29 F. Cas. 366; 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1173; MS, 1869.
  • Gillott v. Esterbrook, [No Number In Original], Court of Appeals of New York, 48 N.Y. 374; 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 297, September 29, 1871, Argued, January Term, 1872, Decided.
  • Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co. v. Ahern, [No Number In Original], Court of Chancery of New Jersey, 30 N.J. Eq. 341; 1879 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 95, February, 1879, Decided.
  • Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co. v. Ahern, [No Number In Original], Court of Appeals of New Jersey, 31 N.J. Eq. 3; 1879 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 55, May 1879, Decided.
  • Penmac Corp. v. Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co., District Court, S.D. New York, 27 F. Supp. 86; 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2817; 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 263, March 31, 1939.
  • Penmac Corp. v. Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co., No. 140, United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, 108 F.2d 695; 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4114; 44 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 146, January 8, 1940.
  • Esterbrook Pen Co. v. San Juan F. Vilarino 5 y 10, Inc., Civ. No. 9185, United States District Court For The District Of Puerto Rico, San Juan Division, 144 F. Supp. 309; 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2757; 1956 Trade Cas. (CCH) P68,555, September 10, 1956.
  • Esterbrook Pen Co. v. United States, Civil Action No. 156-59., United States District Court For The District Of New Jersey, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4499; 60-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9609; 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5123, July 7, 1960.
  • F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States, Protests 63/5941 and 63/5949 against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of Philadelphia, United States Customs Court, Second Division, 59 Cust. Ct. 438; 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2136; Cust. Dec. 3181, October 31, 1967.
  • Zephyr American Corporation v. The Esterbrook Pen Company, 135 USPQ 85 (TT & A Bd., 1962).


FALCON PENCIL CORP.
  • Penmac Corporation et al. v. Falcon Pencil Corporation, District Court, S.D. New York, 28 F. Supp. 639; 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2383; 43 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 182, July 25, 1939.

FINSTONE, Marx (ECLIPSE)
  • Parker Pen Co. v. Finstone, District Court, S.D. New York, 7 F.2d 753; 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1276, July 24, 1925.

FISHER PEN CO.
  • Eversharp, Inc. v. Fisher Pen Co., Civ. A. No. 56 C 77, United States District Court For the NORTHERN District of ILLINOIS, EASTERN Div., 204 F. Supp. 649; 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5951; 132 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 423, November 7, 1961.

FOLEY
  • French v. Foley, District Court, S. D. New York, April 4, 1882.

GILLOTT
  • Gillott v. Esterbrook, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL], Court of Appeals of New York, 48 N.Y. 374; 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 297, September 29, 1871, Argued, January Term, 1872, Decided.

HICKS
  • Wirt v. Hicks, Circuit Court, S. D. New York, 45 F. 256; 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1740, February 23, 1891.
  • Wirt v. Hicks, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 46 F. 71; 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1213, Apr 16, 1891.

HOLLAND

  • John Holland Gold Pen Co. v. Williams & Co., 2052., Crt of Appeals of Georgia, 7 Ga. App. 173; 66 S.E. 540; 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 572, Nov 18, 1909, Submitted, Dec 10, 1909, Decided.
  • John Holland Gold Pen Co. v. Robbert Optical Co., 5203, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Orleans Parish, 8 Teiss. 180; 1911 La. App. LEXIS 24, February 20, 1911, Decided.
  • John Holland Gold Pen Co. v. Juengling, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL], Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County, 2 Ohio App. 20; 1913 Ohio App. LEXIS 236; 21 Ohio C.A. 593, March 22, 1913, Decided.
  • John Holland Gold Pen Co. v. Juengling, [No number in original], Court of Appeals of Ohio, 1st Appellate District, Hamilton County, 2 Ohio App. 20; 1913 Ohio App. LEXIS 236; 21 Ohio C.A. 593, March 22, 1913, Decided.


HUNT PEN CO.
  • C. Howard Hunt Pen Co. v. Radiant Point Pen Corp., No. 172, United States Court of Appeals For the SECOND CIRCUIT, 135 F.2d 870; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3437; 57 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 429, May 22, 1943.
  • Radiant Point Pen Corp. v. C. Howard Hunt Pen Co., Supreme Court of the United States, 320 U.S. 773; 64 S. Ct. 80; 88 L. Ed. 464; 1943 U.S. LEXIS 1231; 59 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 495, October 18, 1943.
  • C. Howard Hunt Pen Co. v. Federal Trade Com., No. 10479, United States Court of Appeals Third CIRCUIT, 197 F.2d 273; 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4459; 1952 Trade Cas. (CCH) P67,286, November 19, 1951, Argued , May 27, 1952, Decided.
  • C. Howard Hunt Pen Co. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 10437, United States Board of Tax Appeals, 10 B.T.A. 900; 1928 BTA LEXIS 4008, February 20, 1928, Promulgated.

ILLFELDER
  • United States v. Illfelder & Co., No. 191311 T. D. 37901 (36 Treas. Dec. 70)., United States Court of Customs APPEALS, 9 Ct. Cust. 40; 1919 Ct. Cust. LEXIS 2; T.D. 37901, October 29, 1918, Oral argument by Mr. Hanson , Jan. 28, 1919, Decided.

KIMBERLY CORP.
  • Kimberly Corp. v. Hartley Pen Co., No. 14701, United States Court of Appeals NINTH CIRCUIT, 237 F.2d 294; 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5467; 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 67, Sep. 10, 1956.

KRAKER, GEORGE
  • Walter A. Sheaffer v. C. E. Barrett, et al, US District Ct, Northern District of Ill., Eastern Division, in Equity, No. 348, 124 Monadnock Block, Chicago, Feb 11, 1915.

KEERAN, CHARLES R.

  • Charles R. Keeran v. the Wahl Co., Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Chicago, Ill., case no. 42520, re: patent no. 1,693,578, decided ca. Sept 30, 1944.
  • Charles R. Keeran v. the Wahl Co., Superior Court, Chicago, Cook County, Ill., case no. 39-S- 10924, re: patent no. 1,693,578, decided ca. Sept 30, 1944.

LANCASTER
  • Lancaster v. Witte, Circuit Court, D. Maryland, 175 F. 976; 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5243, January 22, 1910.


LAPHAM

  • Francis C. Brown v. Daniel W. Lapham and Francis H. Bogart, Second Circuit, Southern District of New York, Reports of the Circuit Courts, vol. 23, p.475, Apr 1, 1886, Denied.
  • W. W. Stewart v. American News Co. and Henry Dexter [Daniel W. Lapham made the pens], decided in Stewart’s favor, March 25, 1897.


LIVERMORE

  • Cross v. Livermore, Circuit Court, D. Rhode Is., 9 F. 607; 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2056, 1881.


MacKINNON

  • Cross v. MacKinnon, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 11 F. 601; 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2443; 20 Blatchf. 395, March 8, 1882.
  • French v. Foley, District Court, S. D. New York, April 4, 1882.
  • MacKinnon Pen Co. et al, applts., v. Fountain Ink Co. et al, respts., N. Y. Superior Court, General Term, decided Dec 4, 1882, in New York Weekly Digest, vol. 16, pp.422-23.
  • MacKinnon Pen Co. v. Fountain Ink Co., [No number in original], Court of Appeals of New York, 93 N.Y. 658; 1883 N.Y. LEXIS 378, October 16, 1883, Argued, October 26, 1883, Decided, Decision without Published Opinion.


MODERN PEN CO.
See both A. A. Waterman and L. E. Waterman Co.

MONTBLANC

  • Montblanc-Simplo GmbH v. Staples, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-10235-DPW, United States District Court For the District of MASSACHUSETTS, 172 F. Supp. 2d 231; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7905, May 3, 2001, Decided.


MOORE (AMERICAN FOUNTAIN PEN CO.)
  • William F. Cushman v. Atlantis Fountain Pen Co., No. 406, Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts, 164 F. 94; 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5290, July 23, 1908.


MORSE

  • The Morse Fountain Pen Company vs. The Esterbrook Steel Pen Manufacturing Company. In Equity. Case No. 9,862, Circuit Court, D. New Jersey, 17 F. Cas. 875; 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1336; 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 515, March 1869.


NEW DIAMOND POINT

  • James V. Worth v. New Diamond Point Pen Co., Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division First Department, 222 A.D. 730; 1927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8571, December 1927.


PAPERMATE

  • Ashcroft v. Paper Mate Mfg. Co., No. 23328, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 434 F.2d 910; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6364; 168 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 66, November 18, 1970.


PARKER

  • L. E. Waterman v. Parker Pen Co., No. 25; No. 26, Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 100 F. 544; 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5116, February 16, 1900.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Parker Pen Co., No. 23, Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 107 F. 141; 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3689, March 22, 1901.
  • Parker Pen Co. v. Wadsworth, [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, 127 A.D. 933; 111 N.Y.S. 1133; 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4385, June, 1908, Decided, Decision Without Published Opinion.
  • Strimple v. Parker Pen Co., [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 177 Wis. 111; 187 N.W. 1001; 1922 Wisc. LEXIS 248, Mar 15, 1922, Argued, May 9, 1922, Decided.
  • Parker Pen Co. v. Finstone, District Court, S.D. New York, 7 F.2d 753; 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1276, July 24, 1925.
  • Parker Pen Co. v. Rex Mfg. Co., No. 226, District Court, D. Rhode Island, 11 F.2d 533; 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1012, March 6, 1926.
  • Parker v. United States, No. 5897, Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 88 F.2d 907; 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3275; 37-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9137; 19 A.F.T.R.(P-H) 215, Feb. 24, 1937.
  • Russell T. Wing and Zoe E. Wing, Petitioners, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent, 278 F.2d 656, 60-2 USTC P 9492, 125 U.S.P.Q. 618, No. 16397, United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, June 2, 1960.


PENMAC CORP.
  • Penmac Corporation et al. v. Falcon Pencil Corporation, District Court, S.D. New York, 28 F. Supp. 639; 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2383; 43 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 182, July 25, 1939.

PURITAN RUBBER MFG. CO.
  • Stedman v. Puritan Rubber Mfg. Co., No. 3482, Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 16 F.2d 742; 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3940, December 7, 1926.

REX
  • Parker Pen Co. v. Rex Mfg. Co., No. 226, District Court, D. Rhode Island, 11 F.2d 533; 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1012, March 6, 1926.


REYNOLDS

  • Reynolds International Pen Co. v. Eversharp, Inc., Civil Action No. 739, United States District Court For the District of Delaware, 63 F. Supp. 423; 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1711; 68 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 158, November 17, 1945.
  • Reynolds International Pen Co. v. Eversharp, Inc.., Civil Action No. 739, United States District Court For the District of Delaware, 5 F.R.D. 382; 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1564; 70 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 294, July 8, 1946.


RITE-RITE
  • Rite-Rite Mfg. Co. v. Rite-Craft Co., 181 F.2d 226, Patent Appeals No. 5667, United States Court of Customs And Patent Appeals, Apr. 3, 1950.

SACKETT
  • Sackett v. Smith, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 42 F. 846; 1890 U.S. App. LEXIS 2254, May 13, 1890.

SCRIPTO
  • Scripto, Inc. v. Ferber Corp., Civ. No. 463-56, United States District Court For the District of NEW JERSEY, 163 F. Supp. 113; 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3931; 118 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 23, June 26, 1958.

SECRETARY PEN CO.
  • Secretary Pen Co., Inc., et al [Joseph V. Wuestman], v. Everlast Pen Corp., Second Circuit Court of Appeals, New York, 186 F.2d 575, No. 142, Docket 21855, Jan 29, 1951.

SHEAFFER
  • In re Sheaffer's Estate, No. 377, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 240 Pa. 83; 87 A. 577; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 635, February 12, 1913, Argued, March 24, 1913.
  • Walter A. Sheaffer v. C. E. Barrett, et al, US District Ct, Northern District of Ill., Eastern Division, in Equity, No. 348, 124 Monadnock Block, Chicago, Feb 11, 1915.
  • BARRETT et al. v. SHEAFFER., No. 2519, Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 251 F. 74; 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1679, January 2, 1918.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 9408, United States Board of Tax Appeals, 9 B.T.A. 842; 1927 BTA LEXIS 2504, December 23, 1927, Promulgated.
  • W. A. Sheaffer v. Cromer Aircraft Pen Co. Inc., W. A. Sheaffer, violation of patent 1118240 for fountain pens, D. C. N. D. Ala. (Birmingham) Doc. E 480, Injunction granted June 2, 1928.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Lucas, No. 4838, Court of Appeals of District of Columbia, 41 F.2d 117; 59 App. D.C. 323; 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2734; 5 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P1647; 8 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 10934, Argued April 9, 1930, May 5, 1930, Decided.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Worth Featherweight Pen Co., District Court, S.D. New York, 41 F.2d 820, Apr 28, 1930, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2185, July 1, 1930.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Commissioner, Docket Nos. 16788, 27036., United States Board of Tax Appeals, 21 B.T.A. 661; 1930 BTA LEXIS 1814, December 12, 1930, Promulgated.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Eagle Pencil Co., District Court, S.D. New York, 55 F.2d 420; 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1953, December 3, 1931.
  • Katz Drug Co. v. W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co., No. 1749, District Court, W.D. Missouri, W.D., 6 F. Supp. 210; 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1435, September 23, 1932.
  • Katz Drug Co. v. W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co., No. 1749, District Court, W.D. Missouri, W.D., 6 F. Supp. 212; 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1017, May 1, 1933.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 36604, United States Board of Tax Appeals, 27 B.T.A. 1056; 1933 BTA LEXIS 1258, April 3, 1933, Promulgated.
  • Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Coe, No. 63650, District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, 27 F. Supp. 380; 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2911; 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 134, Mar 6, 1939.
  • In re General Permanent Wave Corporation, 118 F.2d 1020, 28 CCPA 1099 (1941).
  • In re W. A. Sheaffer Pen Company, 72 US PQ 129 (CCPA, 1946).
  • In re General Permanent Wave Corporation, 158 F.2d 390, 34 CCPA 771 (1946).
  • In re W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co., No. 5211, UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS, 34 C.C.P.A. 771; 158 F.2d 390; 1946 CCPA LEXIS 556; 72 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 129, November 14, 1946, Oral argument by Mr. Rathburn and Mr. Federico , December 9, 1946, Decided.
  • Fremon, v. W. A. Sheaffer Pen CO., 209 F.2d 627, 100 U.S.P.Q. 203, No. 14819, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Feb. 2, 1954.
  • Ernst Johan Jens Henriksen and W. A. Sheaffer Pen Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Cory Corporation, Defendant-Appellant., 327 F.2d 409, No. 14070. United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit. Jan. 20, 1964, Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1964.
  • Application of The REALISTIC COMPANY., 440 F.2d 1393, Patent Appeal No. 8529, United States Court of Customs And Patent Appeals. May 13, 1971.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Company, a Div. of Textron, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, 486 F.2d 180, 84 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2456, 72 Lab. Cas. P 14,003, Nos. 72-1778, 73-1007. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 10, 1973. Decided Oct. 11, 1973. Rehearing And Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 20, 1973.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 9408., United States Board of Tax Appeals, 9 B.T.A. 842; 1927 BTA LEXIS 2504, December 23, 1927, Promulgated.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Commissioner, Docket Nos. 16788, 27036.,United States Board of Tax Appeals, 21 B.T.A. 661; 1930 BTA LEXIS 1814, December 12, 1930, Promulgated.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Commissioner, Docket Nos. 16788, 27036., United States Board of Tax Appeals, 21 B.T.A. 661; 1930 BTA LEXIS 1814, December 12, 1930, Promulgated.
  • W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 36604., United States Board of Tax Appeals, 27 B.T.A. 1056; 1933 BTA LEXIS 1258, Apr. 3, 1933, Promulgated.
  • Estate of Sheaffer v. Commissioner, No. 17075, United States Court of Appeals EIGHTH CIRCUIT, 313 F.2d 738; 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6166; 63-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9272; 4 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 839; 11 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 839, Feb. 13, 1963 , Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied, Reported at 375 U.S. 818. Petition for Rehearing Denied, March 6, 1963.
  • Estate of Sheaffer v. Commissioner, Docket No. 4146-64., United States TAX COURT, T.C. Memo 1966-126; 1966 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 156; 25 T.C.M. (CCH) 646; T.C.M. (RIA) 66126, June 10, 1966.
  • Waterman-BIC Pen Corporation v. W. A. Sheaffer Pen Company, Division of Textron, Inc., Civ. A. No. 2273, District Court, D. Delaware, April 20, 1967.


SPENCERIAN

  • People ex rel. Spencerian Pen Co. v. Kelsey, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL], SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, 105 A.D. 132; 93 N.Y.S. 971; 1905 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2023, May 1905, Decided.
  • People ex rel. Spencerian Pen Co. v. Kelsey, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL], Court of Appeals of New York, 185 N.Y. 546; 77 N.E. 1195; 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 956, April 18, 1906, Argued, May 8, 1906, Decided.


STANDARD ; VULCANITE PEN CO.

  • Lotz v. Standard Vulcanite Pen Co., Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Depart. 183 A.D. 904; 169 N.Y.S. 1102; 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4751, March 15, 1918.
  • Hardman Tire & Rubber Co. v. Standard Vulcanite Pen Co., Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 185 A.D. 926; 172 N.Y.S. 895; 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7013, October 18, 1918.
  • Hardman Tire & Rubber Co. v. Standard & Vulcanite Pen Co., Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 186 A.D. 944; 173 N.Y.S. 909; 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7662, December 13, 1918.
  • Hardman Tire & Rubber Co. v. Standard & Vulcanite Pen Co., Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 187 A.D. 945; 174 N.Y.S. 905; 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6096, March 7, 1919.


STARR

  • Joseph Starr, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent, 226 F.2d 721, 55-2 USTC P 9731, No. 11299. United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit. Nov 2, 1955.
  • Jack Starr, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent. Samuel M. Starr,
  • Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent, 267 F.2d 148, 59-1 USTC P 9473,Nos. 12550, 12551, United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit. May 20, 1959.


STEWART

  • W. W. Stewart v. American News Co. and Henry Dexter [Daniel W. Lapham made the pens], decree in Stewart’s favor, March 25, 1897.
  • W. W. Stewart v. Paul E. Wirt [American News Co. for selling Wirt’s pens], decree in Stewart’s favor, March 25, 1897.


WAHL

  • Charles R. Keeran v. the Wahl Co., Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Chicago, Ill., case no. 42520, re: patent no. 1,693,578, decided ca. Sept 30, 1944.
  • Charles R. Keeran v. the Wahl Co., Superior Court, Chicago, Cook County, Ill., case no. 39-S- 10924, re: patent no. 1,693,578, decided ca. Sept 30, 1944.
  • Reynolds International Pen Co. v. Eversharp, Inc., Civil Action No. 739, United States District Court For the District of Delaware, 63 F. Supp. 423; 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1711; 68 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 158, November 17, 1945.
  • Reynolds International Pen Co. v. Eversharp, Inc.., Civil Action No. 739, United States District Court For the District of Delaware, 5 F.R.D. 382; 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1564; 70 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 294, July 8, 1946.
  • Wahl v. Commissioner, Docket No. 25770, United States TAX COURT, 19 T.C. 651; 1953 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 261, Jan. 12, 1953, Promulgated.
  • Kimberly Corp. v. Hartley Pen Co., No. 14701, United States Court of Appeals NINTH CIRCUIT, 237 F.2d 294; 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5467; 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 67, Sep. 10, 1956.
  • Preis v. Eversharp, Inc., Civ. No. 15046, United States District Court For the EASTERN District of NEW YORK, 154 F. Supp. 98; 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3060, July 23, 1957.
  • Eversharp, Inc. v. Fisher Pen Co., Civ. A. No. 56 C 77, United States District Court For the NORTHERN District of ILLINOIS, EASTERN Div., 204 F. Supp. 649; 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

5951; 132 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 423, November 7, 1961.

WASHINGTON MEDALLION PEN CO.

  • Washington Medallion Pen Co. v. Esterbrook, Case No. 17,246a, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 29 F. Cas. 366; 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1173; MS, 1869.


A. A. WATERMAN

  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. A. A. Waterman, [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 27 A.D. 133; 50 N.Y.S. 131; 1898 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 593, March 1898, Decided.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. A. A. Waterman, [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 29 A.D. 630; 52 N.Y.S. 1144; 1898 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1201, May 1898, Decided, Decision Without Published Opinion.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. A. A. Waterman, [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 40 A.D. 530; 58 N.Y.S. 168; 1899 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1161, May 1899, Decided.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Lockwood, No. 951; No. 1,223; No. 1,224, Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts, 128 F. 174; 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4669, February 8, 1904. Am. Stat., Mar 19, 1910, p.8, “L. E. Waterman Co. Wins” another case with A. A. Waterman & Co., they had to inscribe the phrase “Not connected with the original Waterman” on their pens.
  • Chapman v. L. E. Waterman Co., [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 138 A.D. 897; 123 N.Y.S. 1110; 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1755, May 1910, Decided, Decision Without Published Opinion.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., No. 175, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 183 F. 118; 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5025, November 14, 1910.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., District Court, S.D. New York, 193 F. 242; 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1779, January 25, 1912.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., No. 208, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 197 F. 534; 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1309, May 14, 1912.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., No. 208, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 197 F. 534; 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1310, May 28, 1912.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., No. 208, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 197 F. 536; 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1311, June 7, 1912, Am. Stat., June 29, 1912, p.18, “Waterman Injunction Made More Severe”, they now had to inscribe their pens “Not connected with the L. E. Waterman Company”.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., Nos. 54, 72, Supreme Court of The United States, 235 U.S. 88; 35 S. Ct. 91; 59 L. Ed. 142; 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1005, Argued November 10, 1914, November 30, 1914.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Standard Drug Co., No. 2615, Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 222 F. 1023; 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1525, May 14, 1915.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Kline, No. 1423, Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 234 F. 891; 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2152, July 7, 1916.
  • Chapman v. L. E. Waterman Co., [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 176 A.D. 697; 163 N.Y.S. 1059; 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5267, March 23, 1917.
  • Chapman v. L. E. Waterman Co., [No Number In Original], Court of Appeals of New York, 221 N.Y. 637; 117 N.E. 1064; 1917 N.Y. LEXIS 1508, October 1, 1917, Argued, Oct 9, 1917, Decided.
  • Chapman v. L. E. Waterman Co., Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Depart. 180 A.D. 888; 166 N.Y.S. 1088; 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7500, October 11, 1917, Isaac E. Chapman and William L. Chapman, owners of A. A. Waterman & Co. were forced to stop using the name “Waterman”, had to change name to “Modern”, continued to use “A. A.”.


L. E. WATERMAN
  • Lewis E. Waterman v. Charles B. Rowley, (?) June 1886, (?).
  • Lewis E. Waterman v. Edward L. Shipman, 55 F. 982, 986; 5 C. C. A. 371; 130 N.Y. 301; 29 N.E. 111; 8 N.Y. 814; 19 N.Y. 976, decided Aug 15, 1889 (?).
  • Waterman et al. v. Shipman et al, Supreme Court, General Term, Second Dept., 8 N.Y. 814, February 12, 1890, decided May 25, 1893 (?).
  • Lewis E. Waterman v. James A. Mackenzie, et al [Samuel R. Murphy], U.S. Supreme Court, 138 U.S. 252-261, 138U. 8.252, 11 S.Ct. 334, 34 L.Ed. 923, February 2, 1891.
  • Waterman v. Shipman, [No Number In Original], Court of Appeals of New York, 130 N.Y. 301; 29 N.E. 111; 1891 N.Y. LEXIS 1271, October 29, 1891, Argued. December 8, 1891, Decided.
  • Waterman v. Shipman, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 55 F. 982; 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2037, Apr. 18, 1893.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. A. A. Waterman, [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 27 A.D. 133; 50 N.Y.S. 131; 1898 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 593, March 1898, Decided.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. A. A. Waterman, [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 29 A.D. 630; 52 N.Y.S. 1144; 1898 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1201, May 1898, Decided, Decision Without Published Opinion.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. A. A. Waterman, [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 40 A.D. 530; 58 N.Y.S. 168; 1899 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1161, May 1899, Decided.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Vassar College, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 99 F. 564; 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5045, January 26, 1900.
  • L. E. Waterman v. Parker Pen Co., No. 25; No. 26, Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 100 F. 544; 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5116, February 16, 1900.
  • People ex rel. L. E. Waterman Co. v. Morgan, [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, 48 A.D. 395; 63 N.Y.S. 76; 1900 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 455, March 1900, Decided.
  • In re L. E. Waterman Co., [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Special Term, Albany County, 33 Misc. 569; 68 N.Y.S. 892; 1901 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 13, January 1901, decided.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Parker Pen Co., No. 23, Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 107 F. 141; 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3689, March 22, 1901.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Forsyth, et al, No. 7,335, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 121 F. 107; 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5327, January 7, 1903.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Forsyth, et al, No. 7,336, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 121 F. 103; 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5326, January 7, 1903.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. McCutcheon, No. 6; No. 32, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 128 F. 926; 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 3991, January 6, 1904.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. McCutchean, No. 7; No. 33, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 127 F. 1020; 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 3870, January 6, 1904.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Johnson, No. 1,221; No. 1,222, Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts, 128 F. 1023; 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4735, February 8, 1904.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Lockwood, No. 951; No. 1,223; No. 1,224, Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts, 128 F. 174; 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4669, February 8, 1904.
  • In re L. E. Waterman Co., No. 593, Court of Appeals of District of Columbia, 34 App. D.C. 185; 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 6015, November 15, 1909, Submitted, December 7, 1909, Decided.
  • Am. Stat., Mar 19, 1910, p.8, “L. E. Waterman Co. Wins” another case with A. A. Waterman & Co., they had to inscribe the phrase “Not connected with the original Waterman” on their pens.
  • Chapman v. L. E. Waterman Co., [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 138 A.D. 897; 123 N.Y.S. 1110; 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1755, May 1910, Decided, Decision Without Published Opinion.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., No. 175, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 183 F. 118; 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5025, November 14, 1910.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., District Court, S.D. New York, 193 F. 242; 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1779, January 25, 1912.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., No. 208, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 197 F. 534; 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1309, May 14, 1912.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., No. 208, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 197 F. 534; 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1310, May 28, 1912.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., No. 208, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 197 F. 536; 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1311, June 7, 1912, Am. Stat., June 29, 1912, p.18, “Waterman Injunction Made More Severe”, they now had to inscribe their pens “Not connected with the L. E. Waterman Company”.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., Nos. 54, 72, Supreme Court of The United States, 235 U.S. 88; 35 S. Ct. 91; 59 L. Ed. 142; 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1005, Argued November 10, 1914, November 30, 1914.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Standard Drug Co., No. 2615, Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 222 F. 1023; 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1525, May 14, 1915.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Kline, No. 1423, Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 234 F. 891; 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2152, July 7, 1916.
  • Chapman v. L. E. Waterman Co., [No Number In Original], Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 176 A.D. 697; 163 N.Y.S. 1059; 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5267, March 23, 1917.
  • Chapman v. L. E. Waterman Co., [No Number In Original], Court of Appeals of New York, 221 N.Y. 637; 117 N.E. 1064; 1917 N.Y. LEXIS 1508, October 1, 1917, Argued, Oct 9, 1917, Decided.
  • Chapman v. L. E. Waterman Co., Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Depart. 180 A.D. 888; 166 N.Y.S. 1088; 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7500, October 11, 1917, Isaac E. Chapman and William L. Chapman, owners of A. A. Waterman & Co. were forced to stop using the name “Waterman”, had to change name to “Modern”, continued to use “A. A.”.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Gordon, No. 489, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 72 F.2d 272; 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4522, July 16, 1934.
  • L. E. Waterman Co. v. Gordon, No. 353, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 76 F.2d 1013; 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 2793, April 4, 1935.
  • Dunn v. L. E. Waterman Co., District Court, S.D. New York, 22 F. Supp. 543; 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1204, November 24, 1937.
  • Waterman-BIC Pen Corporation Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant- Appellee, 332 F.2d 711, No. 409, Docket 28629, United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued Apr. 9, 1964, Decided June 9, 1964.
  • Waterman-BIC Pen Corporation v. W. A. Sheaffer Pen Company, Division of Textron, Inc., Civ. A. No. 2273, District Court, D. Delaware, April 20, 1967.

WIRT

  • Wirt v. Brown, Circuit Court, E.D. New York, 32 F. 283; 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2752, September 19, 1887.
  • Wirt v. Hicks, Cir Court, S.D. New York, 45 F. 256; 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1740, Feb 23, 1891.
  • Wirt v. Hicks, Cir. Court, S.D. New York, 46 F. 71; 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1213, Apr 16, 1891.
  • Wirt v. [Mabie, Todd &] Bard, started Apr 25, 1891, settled out of court, May 13, 1895.
  • Wirt v. Farrelly, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 84 F. 891; 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2705,February 9, 1898.

WORTH, JAMES V.
  • James V. Worth v. New Diamond Point Pen Co., Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division First Department, 222 A.D. 730; 1927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8571, December 1927.

WORTH FEATHERWEIGHT
  • W. A. Sheaffr Pen Co. v. Worth Featherweight Pen Co., District Court, S.D. New York, 41 F.2d 820; 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2185, July 1, 1930.

WRITE AWAY PEN CO.
  • Write Away Pen Co. v. Buckner, [No Number In Original], Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City, 188 Mo. App. 259; 175 S.W. 81; 1915 Mo. App. LEXIS 72, April 5, 1915, Decided.

If you reached this page, chances are that you are interested in the history of fountain pens. Patents offer an interesting insight for the history of our beloved pens. You should consider purchasing George Kovalenko's book on Fountain Pen Patents 1911-1950s. Click here for more information. This is a labor of love and is the most comprehensive collection of pen patents that exists. George works currently on the first volume, which I am waiting anxiously for.