Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-55619,96-55619 |
| Parties | 1997 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,611, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1184, 25 Media L. Rep. 1641, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2215, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4075 DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PENGUIN BOOKS USA, INC., a corporation; Dove Audio, Inc., a corporation, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Vincent Cox, Leopold, Petrich & Smith, Los Angeles, California, for defendants-appellants.
Alexander H. Rogers and Cathy Ann Bencivengo, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, San Diego, California, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Napoleon A. Jones, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-0302-NAJ.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, T.G. NELSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
We must decide whether a poetic account of the O.J. Simpson double murder trial entitled The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice, presents a sufficient showing of copyright and trademark infringement of the well-known The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss.
Penguin Books USA, Inc. ("Penguin") and Dove Audio, Inc. ("Dove") interlocutorily appeal the district court's preliminary injunction prohibiting the publication and distribution of The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice, a rhyming summary of highlights from the O.J. Simpson double murder trial, as violating copyrights and trademarks owned by Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. ("Seuss"), particularly from the book The Cat in the Hat.
Seuss, a California limited partnership, owns most of the copyrights and trademarks to the works of the late Theodor S. Geisel, the author and illustrator of the famous children's educational books written under the pseudonym "Dr. Seuss." Between 1931 and 1991, Geisel wrote, illustrated and published at least 47 books that resulted in approximately 35 million copies currently in print worldwide. He authored and illustrated the books in simple, rhyming, repetitive language, accompanied by characters that are recognizable by and appealing to children. The characters are often animals with human-like characteristics.
In The Cat in the Hat, first published in 1957, Geisel created a mischievous but well meaning character, the Cat, who continues to be among the most famous and well recognized of the Dr. Seuss creations. The Cat is almost always depicted with his distinctive scrunched and somewhat shabby red and white stove-pipe hat. Seuss owns the common law trademark rights to the words "Dr. Seuss" and "Cat in the Hat," as well as the character illustration of the Cat's stove-pipe hat. Seuss also owns the copyright registrations for the books The Cat in the Hat, The Cat in the Hat Comes Back, The Cat in the Hat Beginner Book Dictionary, The Cat in the Hat Songbook, and The Cat's Quizzer. In addition, Seuss has trademark registrations for the marks currently pending with the United States Trademark Office. Seuss has licensed the Dr. Seuss marks, including The Cat in the Hat character, for use on clothing, in interactive software, and in a theme park.
In 1995, Alan Katz and Chris Wrinn, respectively, wrote and illustrated The Cat NOT in the Hat! satirizing the O.J. Simpson double murder trial. Penguin and Dove, the publishers and distributors, were not licensed or authorized to use any of the works, characters or illustrations owned by Seuss. They also did not seek permission from Seuss to use these properties.
Seuss filed a complaint for copyright and trademark infringement, an application for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction 1 after seeing an advertisement promoting The Cat NOT in the Hat! prior to its publication. The advertisement declared:
Wickedly clever author "Dr. Juice" gives the O.J. Simpson trial a very fresh new look. From Brentwood to the Los Angeles County Courthouse to Marcia Clark and the Dream Team. The Cat Not in the Hat tells the whole story in rhyming verse and sketches as witty as Theodore [sic] Geisel's best. This is one parody that really packs a punch!
Seuss alleged that The Cat NOT in the Hat! misappropriated substantial protected elements of its copyrighted works, used six unregistered and one registered Seuss trademarks, and diluted the distinctive quality of its famous marks. Katz subsequently filed a declaration stating that The Cat in the Hat was the "object for [his] parody" and portions of his book derive from The Cat in the Hat only as "necessary to conjure up the original."
Seuss filed suit under the enforcement provisions of the Copyright Code, 17 U.S.C. §§ 501-02; the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1); and the California Unfair Competition Statute, § 17200 et seq. and § 14330. The district court denied the request for the temporary restraining order, but it set a hearing date for the preliminary injunction. Penguin and Dove went forward with the production schedule. Seuss incorporated additional infringement claims from other Dr. Seuss texts-Horton Hatches the Egg and One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish-in its request for injunctive relief. On March 21, 1996, the district court granted Seuss' request for a preliminary injunction. About 12,000 books, at an expense of approximately $35,500, had been printed to date but now were enjoined from distribution. Penguin and Dove brought a motion for reconsideration and Katz filed a second declaration admitting to drawing from the other two Dr. Seuss works. Seuss then withdrew its claim regarding an illustration from Horton for purposes of its motion for injunctive relief.
While the district court modified its order in reconsidering these new claims, it did not dissolve the preliminary injunction. The court found that Seuss had demonstrated: (1) a strong likelihood that Katz and Wrinn had taken substantial protected expression from The Cat in the Hat but not from Horton or One Fish Two Fish; (2) a strong likelihood of success on the copyright claim raising a presumption of irreparable harm; (3) a strong likelihood of success on the parody as fair use issue; (4) serious questions for litigation and a balance of hardships favoring Seuss on the trademark violations; and (5) a minimal likelihood of success on the federal dilution claim. Penguin and Dove timely appealed. 2
We must first determine whether The Cat NOT in the Hat! infringes on Seuss' rights under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 106. Seuss, as the owner of the Dr. Seuss copyrights, owns the exclusive rights (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work; (2) to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public; (4) to perform the work publicly; and (5) to display the copyrighted work publicly. § 106. Seuss alleges that Penguin and Dove made an unauthorized derivative work of the copyrighted works The Cat in the Hat, The Cat in the Hat Comes Back, The Cat's Quizzer, The Cat in the Hat Beginner Books Dictionary, and The Cat in the Hat's Song Book in violation of §§ 106 and 501.
To prove a case of copyright infringement, Seuss must prove both ownership of a valid copyright and infringement of that copyright by invasion of one of the five exclusive rights. See Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1472 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 506 U.S. 869, 113 S.Ct. 198, 121 L.Ed.2d 141 (1992). First, Seuss is the owner of the Dr. Seuss copyrights and holds valid copyright registration certificates. Second, Katz admitted that the "style of the illustrations and lettering used in [The Cat NOT in the Hat! ] were inspired by [The Cat in the Hat ]. ..." To satisfy the infringement test, Seuss must demonstrate "substantial similarity" between the copyrighted work and the allegedly infringing work. "Substantial similarity" refers to similarity of expression, not merely similarity of ideas or concepts. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Most courts have used some form of bifurcated test to demonstrate "substantial similarity," inquiring first if there is copying and second if an audience of reasonable persons will perceive substantial similarities between the accused work and protected expression of the copyrighted work. This court's two-part test for substantial similarity finds its roots in Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir.1977). In Krofft, the first question is labeled the "extrinsic" test and asks if there is similarity of ideas. "Analytic dissection" is allowed. 3 The second Krofft question is labeled the "intrinsic" test and asks if an "ordinary reasonable person" would perceive a substantial taking of protected expression. At this stage, "analytical dissection" is not appropriate. The Krofft formulation has been criticized by certain leading commentators. See 3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[E] (rev. ed.1996). Penguin and Dove rely on those criticisms to make their case against the copyright infringement claims. 4 We have recently modified the Krofft test, bringing it more in line with the test followed in other circuits. See, e.g., Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442-43 (9th Cir.1994) ( ) (citation omitted); Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir.1990) () (emphasis in original).
"The Cat in the Hat" is the central character in the original work, appearing in nearly every page...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A. H. R. v. Wash. State Health Care Auth.
...admissible at trial." Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. , 924 F. Supp. 1559, 1562 (S.D. Cal. 1996), aff'd , 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997). Evidence such as hearsay testimony may be considered by the court in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction, but the court ......
-
Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.
...in selecting its mark; evidence of actual confusion; and likelihood of expansion in product lines. See Dr. Seuss Enters. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1404 (9th Cir.1997), petition for cert. dismissed by, 521 U.S. 1146, 118 S.Ct. 27, 138 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1997); Sleekcraft, 599 F.2......
-
Westchester Media Co. v. Prl Usa Holdings, Inc.
...even though no actual sale is finally completed as a result of the confusion." 3 id. § 23:6; see also [Dr. Seuss Enters. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1405 (9th Cir.), cert. dism'd, 521 U.S. 1146, 118 S.Ct. 27, 138 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1997)] (noting that no sale must be completed to ......
-
Stern v. Does
...The Copyright Act does not define “fair use,” which is at heart an “equitable rule of reason.” Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 448, 104 S.Ct. 774). Nevertheless, the Act lists as examples of fair use cop......
-
Dumb Starbucks And Parody In Trademark Cases
...is simply as a factor to consider in an analysis of likelihood of confusion. See Dr. Seuss Enterprises L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1977). For example, the US Patent and Trademark recently rejected a parody defense and refused registration of the mark CRACKBERRY ......
-
Porn Parody Or Infringing Pun? Ben & Jerry's Brings Trademark Action Against 'Porno's Finest,' Ben & Cherry's
...or ridicule the mark itself or its owner. Otherwise, it is not a parody. For example, in Dr. Seuss Ent., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) the Ninth Circuit held that a book about the OJ Simpson trial, which mimicked the style and cover of the Cat in the Hat, wa......
-
Intellectual property crimes.
..."The Wind Done Gone" to have transformative use as parody of "Gone With the Wind"); Dr. Seuss Enters. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1997) (applying four elements of fair use doctrine to parody of Dr. Seuss poetry); Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 948 F. Su......
-
Intellectual property crimes.
..."The Wind Done Gone" to have transformative use as parody of "Gone With the Wind"); Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P.v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1997) (applying four elements of fair use doctrine to parody of Dr. Seuss poetry); Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 948 ......
-
Intellectual property crimes.
..."The Wind Done Gone" to have transformative use as parody of "Gone With the Wind"); Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1997) (applying four elements of fair use doctrine to parody of Dr. Seuss poetry); Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 948......
-
Intellectual property crimes.
..."The Wind Done Gone" to have transformative use as parody of "Gone With the Wind"); Dr. Seuss Enters. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1997) (applying four elements of fair use doctrine to parody of Dr. Seuss poetry); Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 948 F. Su......