Alart Associates, Inc. v. Aptaker
Decision Date | 15 January 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 66 Civ. 4546.,66 Civ. 4546. |
Citation | 279 F. Supp. 268 |
Parties | ALART ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. Cy APTAKER and Preview Distributors, Inc., Defendants, Counterclaimants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Alvin G. BLUMBERG, Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
March, Gillette & Wyatt, New York City, for plaintiff.
Julius E. Foster, New York City, for defendants.
In this action for copyright infringement, defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that the Certificate of Copyright Registration No. Gp52281 for the work in question, a pierced earring tree in the form of a sculpture of a flower, stem and leaves, was issued to "Alart, Inc.", a non-existent corporation, rather than to "Alart Associates, Inc.", a New York corporation named as plaintiff in the amended complaint. Omission of the word "Associates" from plaintiff's name on the registration appears to have been an inadvertent error, since it bore plaintiff's true address and no motive existed for not using plaintiff's full name in the registration, a correction of which was filed with the Copyright Office on March 9, 1967 pursuant to § 201.5(a) of the Regulations of the Copyright Office, 37 C.F.R. § 201.5(a) (1966).
Prior to amendment of its complaint, when plaintiff was named as "Alart, Inc.", defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that no such corporation existed, whereupon plaintiff sought leave to amend its complaint to correct the inadvertent clerical omission of the word "Associates" from its name. On March 20, 1967, defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied and plaintiff's motion for leave to amend was granted by Judge Metzner, who, on reargument, adhered to these rulings by order of April 21, 1967.
On this motion, defendants again seek to take advantage of the mistake in plaintiff's name, arguing from the variance between "Alart, Inc." in the certificate of registration and "Alart Associates, Inc." in the amended complaint that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, that the amended complaint is a sham pleading, that certain answers to defendants' interrogatories are false, that the certificate of registration is void, that plaintiff lacks standing to maintain a copyright action, that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff has violated N.Y.Gen.Bus.Law § 130 (McKinney Consol.Laws, c. 25, 1967), formerly Penal Law § 440.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King Records, Inc. v. Bennett
...of Bourne, Co., was insufficient to invalidate certificate of registration absent showing of prejudice); Alart Assoc., Inc. v. Aptaker, 279 F.Supp. 268, 270 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (holding that misidentified copyright claimant Alart, Inc. was sufficiently close to plaintiff's true name, Alart Assoc......
-
Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra
...F.Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y.1987); Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v. Planning & Control, Inc., 646 F.Supp. 1329 (S.D.N.Y.1986); Alart Assocs. Inc. v. Aptaker, 279 F.Supp. 268 (S.D.N.Y.1968), appeal dismissed, 402 F.2d 779 (2d We are aware that most of the cases applying a fraud or prejudice standard, and......
-
Focus Revision Partners v. United States
...no other corporate entity, other than [the plaintiff], could possess this right." Id. at 85; see also Alart Assocs., Inc. v. Aptaker, 279 F.Supp. 268, 269-70 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, and affirming its decision to allow the plaintiff to correct its name in ......
-
Pantone, Inc. v. AI Friedman, Inc.
...a basis for defeating an otherwise valid copyright. United States v. Backer, 134 F.2d 533 (2d Cir. 1943); Alart Associates, Inc. v. Aptaker, 279 F.Supp. 268, 270 (S.D.N.Y.1968). Nor can the defendant escape responsibility on the ground that plaintiff executed a security assignment of the co......