• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatDepartmentStoresOfTheUnitedStates, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)

Type: ThingcaseLegal Caseunit of workLegal caseyago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesyago:WikicatSearsHoldingsyago:Abstraction100002137yago:Act100030358yago:Activity100407535yago:Artifact100021939yago:Case107308889yago:Control100803617yago:DepartmentStore103176763yago:Establishment103297735yago:Event100029378yago:Happening107283608yago:MercantileEstablishment103748162yago:Object100002684yago:PhysicalEntity100001930yago:PlaceOfBusiness103953020yago:Possession100809465yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100yago:YagoGeoEntityyago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntitySupreme Court of the United States caseyago:Retention100810598yago:Structure104341686yago:Whole100003553yago:WikicatDepartmentStoresOfTheUnitedStates New Facet based on Instances of this Class

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case which limited state law on unfair competition when it prevents the copying of an item that is not covered by a patent. Justice Hugo Black wrote for a unanimous Court that the Constitution reserved power over intellectual property such as patents to the federal government exclusively. Since the trial court had found Stiffel's patent invalid as insufficiently inventive, its product design was thus in the public domain and no state law could be used to prevent Sears from copying it.