Summary
finding that a window design was not a trade secret where the features “were readily apparent from a casual inspection of the plaintiff's window which was available on the open market”
Summary of this case from Reed Constr. Data Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Cos.Opinion
No. 325, Docket 26061.
Argued May 6, 1960.
Decided June 9, 1960.
Clarence S. Barasch, New York City (Louis C. Fieland and Herbert Semmel, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Walter C. Lundgren, New York City (John P. Crilly and Lundgren, Lincoln McDaniel, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
We affirm the judgment below on Judge Dimock's thorough analysis of the facts and his discussion of the relevant principles and authorities set forth in his opinion reported at 177 F. Supp. 291 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1959). An examination of the exhibits fully supports Judge Dimock's finding that all of the features of the plaintiff's aluminum casement window which the defendant is alleged to have appropriated, were readily apparent from a casual inspection of the plaintiff's window which was available on the open market.
Affirmed.