Stein v. Expert Lamp Co., 50 C 1479.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 50 C 1479.,50 C 1479. |
| Parties | STEIN et al. v. EXPERT LAMP CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Casimir A. Miketta and W. W. Glenny, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Bair, Freeman & Molinare, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Max Richard Kraus, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
Order Affirmed May 2, 1951. See 188 F.2d 611.
LA BUY, District Judge.
The complaint herein is brought to recover damages for copyright infringement and unfair trade practices by defendant. It alleges jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount pursuant to Sections 1331 and 1332 and as an action arising under the copyright laws of the United States pursuant to Section 1338, 28 U.S.C.A.
The plaintiff has filed a petition for preliminary injunction and the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment. The question raised for determination is whether the work involved is copyrightable subject matter. Before proceeding to consideration of this question, the court makes the observation that the defendant's product alleged to be infringing that of the plaintiff is identical in every respect with that of the plaintiff and both the plaintiff and defendant are selling them for the same purpose, that is, as bases for table lamps.
The products are statuettes identified in the copyright certificate of registration as "Sculptured Figure of Male Balinese Dancer" and "Sculptured Figure of Female Balinese Dancer". The motion for preliminary injunction alleges "the plaintiffs are engaged in the manufacture and sale of works of art in the form of statuettes". Copyright registration was made pursuant to Section 5(g), 17 U.S.C.A. as being in the class of "(g) works of art; models or designs for works of art." In plaintiff's reply brief it is asserted two models of the statuettes, one female and one male, were submitted to the copyright office and these models were in the "form of lamp bases having the threaded mounting stub to receive a lamp socket".
The rules prescribed by the Register of Copyrights define Class (g) as follows:
It is defendant's contention that the form being used as a lamp base removes the work from the class "works of art" and places it within the scope of design patents "for an article of manufacture". In other words, the use for which plaintiff intended the work is not within the monopoly rights granted by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mazer v. Stein
...8. We are advised that it was dismissed by consent February 24, 1953. 3 Stein v. Expert Lamp Co., 7 Cir., 188 F.2d 611, Stein v. Expert Lamp Co., D.C., 96 F.Supp. 97 was the first action brought. Through an accident in presentation, the trial court determined the case as though the copyrigh......
-
Application of Yardley
...139 F.2d 98 (7th Cir. 1943). 6. William A. Meier Co., Inc. v. Anchor Hocking Corp. 95 F.Supp. 264 (W.D.Pa.1951). 7. Stein v. Expert Lamp Co., 96 F. Supp. 97, (N.D.Ill.1951), aff\'d, 188 F.2d 611 (7th Cir. 8. Ex parte Guild, 98 USPQ 464 (Pat.Off.Bd.App.1952), aff\'d on other grounds, In re G......
-
Stein v. Mazer
...to a discussion of certain of the decided cases which seem to be most closely in point. Defendants rely heavily on Stein v. Expert Lamp Co., D. C., 96 F. Supp. 97, affirmed 7 Cir., 188 F.2d 611, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 829, 72 S.Ct. 53, 96 L.Ed. 627. The opinions of District Judge LaBuy ......
-
Rosenthal v. Stein
...District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge La Buy presiding, had the same point before it in the case of Stein v. Expert Lamp Co., 96 F.Supp. 97, and the court held just the opposite from the district court holding in our case. The copyrighted objects in suit were created b......