MILLWORTH CONVERTING CORPORATION v. Slifka

• Decision Date: 09 February 1960
• Citation: 180 F. Supp. 840
• Parties: MILLWORTH CONVERTING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Joseph SLIFKA and Sylvia Slifka, individually and as co-partners doing business under trade names and styles of Slifka Fabrics, Nu-Loom Fabrics, Rose Fabrics Co., Rose Silk Mills, Lonsdale Mills and Joseph Slifka Co., and Balmoral Looms, Inc., and Armory Fabrics, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

180 F. Supp. 840

MILLWORTH CONVERTING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Joseph SLIFKA and Sylvia Slifka, individually and as co-partners doing business under trade names and styles of Slifka Fabrics, Nu-Loom Fabrics, Rose Fabrics Co., Rose Silk Mills, Lonsdale Mills and Joseph Slifka Co., and Balmoral Looms, Inc., and Armory Fabrics, Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

February 9, 1960.

Ruben Schwartz, New York City, for plaintiff, Robert Adler, New York City, of counsel.

Arnold R. Krakower, New York City, for defendants, George P. Halperin, New York City, of counsel.

DAWSON, District Judge.

These are two actions in which applications have been made for preliminary injunctions pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from alleged infringement of copyrighted reproductions of designs on fabrics. Temporary restraining orders were granted. A hearing has been held and testimony taken. The Court finds the following facts:

(1) Plaintiff is a New York corporation doing business in the City, County and State of New York. Plaintiff is a converter of fabrics used in women's dresses and maintains an art department for the creation of new print designs.

(2) The defendants are residents of the State of New York, or do business within the State of New York, and are engaged in the textile converting business in this city.

(3) In or about July, 1959, plaintiff caused to be printed on fabric and published for use on fabrics a certain design known as plaintiff's "No. 965-Embroiderette." Plaintiff's aforesaid printed design was submitted for copyright registration to the Register of Copyrights, at Washington, D. C. Plaintiff complied with all the requirements for registration of a copyright and on July 15, 1959 a certificate of copyright on said design, No. 8545, Class H, was issued by the Copyright Office to the plaintiff.

(4) The design which was copyrighted was derived from a design used in embroidered decoration on women's dresses. Plaintiff's designer, sometime prior to February 1959, bought a dress which had on it the design in question in embroidered form, which was known as a "Schiffli" design. The dress was sent to plaintiff's fabric printer with instructions to copy the design as closely as possible and to print that design on a piece of plaintiff's goods. Plaintiff's printer photographed the aforesaid embroidered design and printed this design on a piece of white fabric. The result was that a design which was made by embroidery, and which was not copyrighted, was photographed and then transferred by the engraver or printing establishment into a printed form on the materials prepared by the plaintiff. While the arrangements of the decorations which made up the design were the same, one type of material had been decorated by embroidery; the other was decorated by a flat printed design.

(5) Thereafter defendants have been manufacturing and distributing another grade of cloth on which they have, in effect, copied plaintiff's reproduction of the copyrighted design. The copies submitted are so substantially the same in appearance that it is virtually impossible to distinguish one from the other, although there may be slight variations which could be ascertained by a minute examination of the particular designs.

(6) Prior to August 7, 1959 plaintiff created a design for use on fabrics known as "No. 652-Embroiderette" and, having complied with the requirements of the copyright law, filed an application for a copyright thereon, and on August 7, 1959 secured copyright registration No. 8677, Class H, on a design entitled "No. 652-Embroiderette." This design No. 652 was the same as the design No. 965, except that it was printed upon a checked background. The essential design, except for the checked background, was reproduced from designs which had previously been used for embroidery designs which were photographed by the plaintiff and then printed upon cloth bearing a checked background.

(7) Thereafter defendants have been manufacturing and distributing another grade of cloth bearing a checked background on which they have, in effect, copied plaintiff's reproduction of a copyrighted design. The copies submitted are so substantially the same in appearance that it is virtually...