Mailman v. Gillette Safety Razor Co. Of Canada Ltd.

Mailman v. Gillette Safety Razor Co. Of Canada Ltd.

Claims 1 and 2, limited to the razor blade, were invalid because they merely claimed apertures forming a designation (a trade‑mark) and a blade designed to work only with the patentee's holder; that subject‑matter lacked patentable invention and public utility and therefore could not support an infringement action.

Citation
[1932] SCR 724
Parties
Appellants (defendants): Samuel Mailman and Others; Respondent (plaintiff): Gillette Safety Razor Co. of Canada, Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 1932
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (blade Holder/blade Design) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Infringement, Claims Construction, Trade‑mark Vs Patent, Utility
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Infringement Claims Construction Trade‑mark Vs Patent Utility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Mailman and Others

Appellants (defendants)

Gillette Safety Razor Co. of Canada, Ltd.

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (blade Holder/blade Design) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 1 and 2 directed to the razor blade constituted patentable subject‑matter
  2. 2 Whether the blade claims were invalid for lack of invention and public utility because they served to protect the blade‑holder manufacturer
  3. 3 Whether the specification and claims sufficiently and unambiguously defined the monopoly

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 2, limited to the razor blade, were invalid because they merely claimed apertures forming a designation (a trade‑mark) and a blade designed to work only with the patentee's holder; that subject‑matter lacked patentable invention and public utility and therefore could not support an infringement action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Action dismissed