Curls in Court

In a Delaware Federal court last week, Judge John Biggs Jr. stared thoughtfully at a demonstration of spiral waves, "croquignole" waves, the grotesque spindles, rolls, clamps and gadgets used in 83,000 U. S. beauty shops to help straight-haired women outwit nature. If the display looked frivolous, the lawsuit behind it was not: at stake was some $6,000,000.

The croquignole process, which revolutionized permanent waves by the simple device of winding the hair around curlers from the tips instead of from the scalp, was patented in the '20s by a Czech named Josef Mayer. In the U. S., Mayer's patents are controlled by the Philad Co., which once licensed equipment manufacturers and collected royalties of at least $80.000 a year. But in 1939 a Federal court ruled that, since the manufacturers did not themselves use the croquignole process, they were exempt from royalties. Thereupon Philad began an attempt to collect $12-up a year from virtually every beauty shop in the land. Possible Philad take: $2.000.000 a year until the patents expire three years hence.

Philad's demand made beauty operators' hair stand right on end. A court test promptly was sought by the National Hairdressers' & Cosmetologists' Association (14,000 members), headed by able St. Louis Businesswoman Edna L. Emme. Miss Emme's claims: the croquignole process had been used in the U. S. before the Mayer patent; the patent was issued improperly; by purchasing machines from licensed manufacturers, the operators had bought the right to use the process anyway. At week's end, Judge Biggs took the case under advisement, started combing out the kinks.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.