Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 1295
Citation | 773 F.2d 411 |
Decision Date | 12 September 1985 |
Docket Number | D,No. 1295,1295 |
Parties | , 1985 Copr.L.Dec. P 25,840 CAROL BARNHART INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ECONOMY COVER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 84-7867. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Steven B. Pokotilow, New York City (Blum Kaplan Friedman, Silberman & Beran, Laura E. Goldbard, Anita K. Yeung, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Jordan B. Bierman, New York City (Eugene V. Handy, Jr., Bierman, Bierman & Peroff, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before MANSFIELD, MESKILL and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Carol Barnhart Inc. ("Barnhart"), which sells display forms to department stores, distributors, and small retail stores, appeals from a judgment of the Eastern District of New York, Leonard D. Wexler, Judge, granting a motion for summary judgment made by defendant Economy Cover Corporation ("Economy"), which sells a wide variety of display products primarily to jobbers and distributors. Barnhart's complaint alleges that Economy has infringed its copyright and engaged in unfair competition by offering for sale display forms copied from four original "sculptural forms" to which Barnhart holds the copyright. Judge Wexler granted Economy's motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's mannequins of partial human torsos used to display articles of clothing are utilitarian articles not containing separable works of art, and thus are not copyrightable. We affirm.
The bones of contention are four human torso forms designed by Barnhart, each of which is life-size, without neck, arms, or a back, and made of expandable white styrene. Plaintiff's president created the forms in 1982 by using clay, buttons, and fabric to develop an initial mold, which she then used to build an aluminum mold into which the poly-styrene is poured to manufacture the sculptural display form. There are two male and two female upper torsos. One each of the male and female torsos is unclad for the purpose of displaying shirts and sweaters, while the other two are sculpted with shirts for displaying sweaters and jackets. All the forms, which are otherwise life-like and anatomically accurate, have hollow backs designed to hold excess fabric when the garment is fitted onto the form. Barnhart's advertising stresses the forms' uses to display items such as sweaters, blouses, and dress shirts, and states that they come "[p]ackaged in UPS-size boxes for easy shipping and [are] sold in multiples of twelve."
Plaintiff created the first of the forms, Men's Shirt, shortly after its founding in March, 1982, and by the end of July it had attracted $18,000 worth of orders. By December 1982, plaintiff had designed all four forms, and during the first morning of the twice-yearly trade show sponsored by the National Association of the Display Industry ("NADI"), customers had placed $35,000 in orders for the forms. Plaintiff's president maintains that the favorable response from visual merchandisers, Barnhart's primary customers, "convinced me that my forms were being purchased not only for their function but for their artistically sculptured features."
Economy, which sells its wide range of products primarily to jobbers, distributors, and national chain stores, not to retail stores, first learned in early 1983 that Barnhart was selling its display forms directly to retailers. After observing that no copyright notice appeared either on Barnhart's forms or in its promotional literature, Economy contracted to have produced for it four forms which it has conceded, for purposes of its summary judgment motion, were "copied from Barnhart's display forms" and are "substantially similar to Barnhart's display forms." Economy began marketing its product, "Easy Pin Shell Forms," in September 1983. Later in the same month, Barnhart wrote to NADI to complain that Economy was selling exact duplicates of Barnhart's sculptural forms at a lower price and asked it to stop the duplication and underselling. Economy responded with a letter from its counsel dated October 17, 1983 to the Chairman of NADI's Ethics Committee stating that Economy was not guilty of any "underhanded" business practices since Barnhart's forms were not protected by "patent, copyright, trademark, or otherwise."
On the same date (October 17, 1983) Barnhart applied for copyright registration for a number of products, including the four forms at issue here. It identified each of the forms as "sculpture" and sought expedited examination of its applications because of the possibility of litigation over copyright infringement. Copyright registration was granted the same day. Then, on October 18, Barnhart informed Economy that its Easy Pin Shell Forms violated Barnhart's rights and demanded that it discontinue its advertising and sale of the forms. In November 1983, more than 18 months after selling its first form, Barnhart advised its customers that copyright notice had "inadvertently [been] omitted" from the display forms previously distributed and enclosed adhesive stickers bearing a copyright notice, which it asked the customers to affix to unmarked products in inventory.
Barnhart filed this suit in December 1983. Count I charges Economy with violating Barnhart's rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Secs. 101-810 (1982), by copying and selling Barnhart's four display forms. Count II alleges that Economy has engaged in unfair competition under the common law of the State of New York. The complaint seeks an adjudication that Economy has infringed Barnhart's copyrights, a preliminary and permanent injunction against Economy's producing, advertising, or selling its forms, damages (consequential, statutory, and punitive), and attorney's fees. Economy moved for summary judgment on the issue of the copyrightability of Barnhart's display forms (and the issue of statutory damages and attorney's fees).
After a hearing on February 3, 1984, Judge Wexler issued an order and opinion on September 12, 1984 granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of copyrightability. 594 F.Supp. 364 (E.D.N.Y.1984). The district court rejected plaintiff's arguments that the issue of copyrightability was an improper subject for summary judgment and that the Copyright Office's issuance of certificates of registration for Barnhart's four forms created an insurmountable presumption of the validity of the copyrights. On the central issue of copyrightability, it reviewed the statutory language, legislative history, and recent case authority, concluding that they all speak with "a single voice," i.e., that a useful article may be copyrighted only to On March 6, 1985, 603 F.Supp. 432, Judge Wexler denied Barnhart's motion for reargument. The present appeal followed.
the extent that "there is a physically or conceptually separable work of art embellishing it...." Id. at 370. Applying this test, the district court determined that since the Barnhart forms possessed no aesthetic features that could exist, either physically or conceptually, separate from the forms as utilitarian articles, they were not copyrightable.
Appellant's threshold argument, that the district court erred in ignoring the statutory presumption of validity accorded to a certificate of copyright registration and to the line-drawing expertise of the Copyright Office, can be disposed of briefly. With respect to the prima facie validity of Copyright Office determinations, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 410(c) states:
H.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 157, reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5659, 5773. See also Oboler v. Goldin, 714 F.2d 211, 212 (2d Cir.1983); 3 M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright Sec. 12.11[B], at 12-79 to 12-80 (1985).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lego A/S v. Best-Lock Constr. Toys, Inc.
...infringer], by effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the [purported owner].’ " Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp. , 773 F.2d 411, 414 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting H. REP. NO. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 157).8 The provision also establishes a time limit for entitlem......
-
Parfums Givenchy v. C & C BEAUTY SALES
...Indus., 696 F.2d at 923; Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories By Pearl, Inc., 632 F.2d 989, 992 (2d Cir.1980); Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 414 (2d Cir.1985). The legislative history specifies that the design or embellishment may be separable from the useful article ......
-
Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc.
...innovation by giving the innovator a monopoly, which is the function of patent law.”); cf. Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 421 n. 1 (2d Cir.1985) (Newman, J., dissenting) (“Any concern that copyright protection may accord a monopoly to advances in functional design i......
-
Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC
...features of the design are not necessary to the performance of the utilitarian function of the article. Carol Barnhart, Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 419 (2d Cir.1985).(4) The Ordinary–Observer Approach: A pictorial, graphic, or sculptural feature is conceptually separable if “......
-
Toc Spring 2009 Supplemental - Table of Contents
...design (i.e., zippers, buttons, etc.) are minimal. 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (2006). 4. See Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 420 (2d Cir. 1985) (Newman, J., dissenting) (copyright infringement case defining "separability" of aesthetic and functional elements of a manneq......
-
The Heart of the Matter: the Property Right Conferred by Copyright - Douglas Y'barbo
...Property, 1992 SUP. CT. REV. 195, 221-22. 77. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101 (1994). See also, e.g., Carol Bamhart, Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 419 (2d. Cir. 1985). 78. Jeanette Winterson, A Work of My Own, in art objects 165 (Vintage 1995). 79. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988)......
-
COPYRIGHT AND THE BRAIN.
...elements"). (51.) 4 NIMMER & NIMMER, supra note 10, at [section] 13.03[E][3][d]; see, e.g., Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411,422 (2d Cir. 1985). An important authority on copyright law maintains the audience test has never been recognized by the Supreme Court and t......
-
Utilitarian information works - is originality the proper lens?
...(133.) Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc., 632 F. 2d 989,993 (2d Cir. 1980). (134.) Carol Barnhart, Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp, 773 F.2d 411, 422 (2d Cir. (135.) See Brandir Int'l., Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co., 834 F.2d 1142, 1145 (2d Cir. 1987). (136.) 1 GOLDSTEIN, supra n......