In  an  interesting  decision,  involving  this  point,*
a  painting  of  artistic  merit,  but  suitable  also  for
designs  to  be  printed  on  boxes,  copies  of  which  were
intended  to  be  used  for  that  purpose,  could,  it  was
held,  under  the  statutes  as  they  existed  prior  to  the
adoption  of  the  present  Act,  be  protected  either  by
copyright  or  patent.     The  Court  said  that  if  an

3— Collis  V.  Cater,  78  L.  T.  613.
4— Louis  DeJonge  &  Co.  v.  Breuker  &  Kessler  Co.,  182  F.  150,  aff 'd
235  TJ.  8.  33,  59  L.  ed.  113.
228


LAW  OF  COPYBIGHT


§607
The  registra-
tion of  copy-
rightable
matter,  not
classified  by
Section  5.
§608

Prudential
rules  in  filing
applications
for  copyright,


election  was  made  of  either,  it  was  exclusive,  but  did
not  intimate  that  both  a  design  patent  and  copy-
right might  not  have  been  taken  out  simultaneously.
This  decision  appears  law  under  the  present  Act,
but  is  no  authority  against  a  ruling  that  both  copy-
right and  patent  may  not,  in  a  proper  case,  co-exist
in  connection  with  different  aspects  of  a  given
entity.
Under  the  English  statutes,  it  has  been  held  ^  that
a  patent  and  a  design  copyright  may  co-exist  in
connection  with  the  same  work.
The  interesting  question  remains  to  be  considered
whether  the  copyrightable  matter  not  falling  within
the  classes  enumerated,  is  to  be  described  as  "un-
classified," in  applying  for  registration  or  what,  if
any,  "specification"  in  connection  therewith,  the
application  for  registration  should  contain.
