▁such ▁state ▁laws ▁could ▁not ▁go ▁so ▁far ▁as ▁to ▁prohib it ▁the ▁copying ▁of ▁the ▁goods ▁themselves : ▁" What ▁S ears ▁did ▁was ▁to ▁copy ▁St iff el ' s ▁design ▁and ▁to ▁sell ▁l amps ▁almost ▁identical ▁to ▁those ▁sold ▁by ▁St iff el . ▁This ▁it ▁had ▁every ▁right ▁to ▁do ▁under ▁the ▁federal ▁pat ent ▁laws . ▁That ▁St iff el ▁origin ated ▁the ▁pole ▁lamp ▁and ▁made ▁it ▁popular ▁is ▁imm aterial ." ▁ ▁Justice ▁Har lan ▁con cur red ▁in ▁the ▁result ▁but ▁op ined ▁that ▁states ▁should ▁be ▁able ▁to ▁prohib it ▁copying ▁if ▁the ▁main ▁purpose ▁of ▁the ▁prohib ition ▁is ▁to ▁prevent ▁" pal ming ▁off " ▁one ▁company ' s ▁goods ▁as ▁those ▁of ▁another . ▁ ▁Sub sequ ent ▁events ▁ ▁St iff el ▁was ▁re aff ir med ▁in ▁Bon ito ▁Bo ats , ▁Inc . ▁v . ▁Th under ▁C raft ▁Bo ats , ▁Inc . ▁ ▁St iff el ▁Co . ▁surv ived ▁the ▁set back ▁of ▁its ▁loss ▁in ▁this ▁case , ▁continu ing ▁in ▁business ▁until ▁ 2 0 0 0 . ▁ ▁At ▁that ▁point , ▁it ▁failed , ▁after ▁ 6 8 ▁years ▁in ▁business . ▁It ▁was ▁described ▁as ▁" the ▁last ▁full - line ▁cast ▁z inc ▁lamp ▁mak er ▁in ▁the ▁United ▁States ." ▁ ▁A ▁Sym pos ium ▁issue ▁of ▁the ▁Columbia ▁Law ▁Review , ▁Product ▁Sim ulation : ▁A ▁Right ▁or ▁a ▁W rong , ▁ 6 4 ▁▁