Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 48
| Decision Date | 02 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | Docket 27547.,No. 48,48 |
| Citation | 309 F.2d 745 |
| Parties | DAN KASOFF, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOVELTY JEWELRY CO., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Eric Y. Munson, New York City, for appellants.
Charles Sonnenreich, New York City, for appellee.
Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
Although it might be thought that the invocation of the power of government to protect designs against infringement implied some merit other than a faint trace of "originality", it is now settled beyond question that practically anything novel can be copyrighted. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S. Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954); Rushton v. Vitale, 218 F.2d 434 (2d Cir.1955). "No matter how poor artistically the `author's' addition, it is enough if it be his own". Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99, 103 (2d Cir. 1951).
There can be no doubt that the copyright on plaintiff's garish trinket was valid and that defendants infringed by copying plaintiff's product.
Even if, as defendants urge, the copyright notice might not be sufficient for some purposes, because it used the word "Florenza", plaintiff's trademark, rather than plaintiff's name, the defendants, as willful infringers wholly aware of the existence of the copyright, are in no position to assert the insufficiency of the notice. See National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir.1951).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. Kramer Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Andrews
...411 (2d Cir.1970)). The requirement is satisfied if the new material or expression has what the Court in Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir.1962) said was a "faint trace of 'originality' " and if it provides a "distinguishable variation," Merritt Forbes & Co.......
-
Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.
...at best"); Millworth Converting Corp. v. Slifka, 276 F.2d 443, 445 (2d Cir. 1960) ("modest"); see also Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir. 1962) ("faint trace" of originality required). Particularly important for decision of the case before us is the explicit......
-
Secure Services Tech. v. Time and Space Processing
...is "modest at best." The requirement is satisfied if the new material or expression has what the Court in Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir.1962) said "was a faint trace of `originality'" and if it provides a "distinguishable Id. at 438 (citations omitted). ......
-
EF Johnson Co. v. Uniden Corp. of America
...is a "modest" one, Durham Industries, 630 F.2d at 910, requiring only a "faint trace" of originality. Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir.1962) (per curiam). As stated in Synercom Technology v. University Computing Co., 462 F.Supp. 1003, 1010 (N.D. Tex.1978) "......