309 F.2d 745 (2nd Cir. 1962), 48, Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co.

Docket Nº:48, 27547.
Citation:309 F.2d 745, 135 U.S.P.Q. 234
Party Name:DAN KASOFF, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOVELTY JEWELRY CO., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel, Defendants-Appellants.
Case Date:November 02, 1962
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 745

309 F.2d 745 (2nd Cir. 1962)

135 U.S.P.Q. 234

DAN KASOFF, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NOVELTY JEWELRY CO., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 48, 27547.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 2, 1962

Argued Oct. 18, 1962.

Eric Y. Munson, New York City, for appellants.

Charles Sonnenreich, New York City, for appellee.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP