Royal Sales Co. v. Gaynor
| Decision Date | 22 September 1908 |
| Citation | 164 F. 207 |
| Parties | ROYAL SALES CO. v. GAYNOR et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
On Rehearing, October 6, 1908.
On Rehearing.
Duncan & Duncan, for the motion.
Robert W. Hardie, opposed.
September 14, 1908, an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue in this case was granted, returnable on the 15th, and on that day the defendant filed a demurrer to the bill, and also answering affidavits. The demurrer and motion were argued together, and as the question in dispute will cease to be of the slightest importance to either party after election day, November 3d, it is desirable to determine their rights at once. I will not discuss the many questions arising under the demurrer, because the disposition which I feel compelled to make of the motion would be the same, were the bill amended to cover all objections.
The bill is filed solely upon the copyright assigned by the defendant Gaynor to the complainant's assignor. It is for a book entitled which describes a monogram composed of the letters 'TAFT,' and explains the many names, words phrases, and ideas associated with Mr. Taft which are abbreviated in it, of which a list is given; that it also contains the initials of Mr. Roosevelt; the cross, the emblem of Christianity; the mystical number, 7; and the important words, 'You' and 'I.' Badges of the design of the monogram are sold pinned to the booklet.
(Image Omitted)
The defendant Gaynor after this sale copyrighted another booklet called 'Republican Platform Planks,' and is selling pinned with it a badge in the form of the monogram described in the first copyrighted booklet. I am satisfied from the affidavits that Gaynor, who is a registered attorney in the Patent Office, assured the complainant and its assignor that the copyright which he was selling did cover the making and selling of this monogram; that all parties understood the chief, if not the sole, value of the transaction was in the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the monogram in the present presidential campaign; and that Gaynor, in making and selling a similar badge with his subsequent copyrighted booklet, is acting in bad faith.
The complainant contends that Gaynor, as assignor, is estopped from alleging that the copyright which he sold does not cover the monogram and the making of the badges in question, citing Marvel Co. v. Pearl (C.C.) 114 F. 946, and Hurwood Manufacturing Co. v. Wood (C.C.) 138 F. 835. In those cases the patents expressly covered the subject in dispute, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ansehl v. Puritan Pharmaceutical Co.
...business object of advertising a show, and the instruction to find for the defendant was not error." See, also, Royal Sales Co. v. Gaynor, 164 F. 207, 209 (C. C., S. D. N. Y.); Mutual Advertising Co. v. Refo, 76 F. 961, 963 (C. C., D. S. The Bleistein Case established a new and liberal stan......
-
Jeweler's Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co., 188.
...not elements of originality, and leaves no room for artistic treatment, and cannot be copyrighted. The defendant relies upon Royal Sales Co. v. Gaynor, 164 F. 207, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York held that the copyright of a book did not cover......
-
Fargo Mercantile Co. v. Brechet & Richter Co.
... ... indicating the article of manufacture. Royal Sales Co. v ... Gaynor (C.C.) 164 F. 207. But, however this may be, it ... is not of importance ... ...
-
King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 290.
... ... its value in that form, to give amusement in contemplation ... We are referred to Royal Sales Co. v. Gaynor et al., ... 164 F. 207, a case in the trial court, where the defendant ... ...