American Visuals Corporation v. Frederick A. Holland and Sam Schwartz

Second Circuit

American Visuals Corporation v. Frederick A. Holland and Sam Schwartz

219 F.2d 223, 104 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 222, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5359

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1955

Docket115, Docket 23207

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 219 F.2d 223 (American Visuals Corporation v. Frederick A. Holland and Sam Schwartz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Visuals Corporation v. Frederick A. Holland and Sam Schwartz, 219 F.2d 223, 104 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 222, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5359 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The granting or refusing of an injunction pendente lite is ordinarily a discretionary matter for the district judge, whose decision will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion is apparent. Meccano, Ltd. v. John Wanamaker, 253 U.S. 136, 141, 40 S.Ct. 463, 64 L.Ed. 822; Huber Baking Co. v. Stroehmann Bros. Co., 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 464, 465, 467; Aeolian Co. v. Fischer, 2 Cir., 29 F.2d 679, 681; Behre v. Anchor Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 297 F. 986, 991. We see no such abuse in the case at bar.

The motion was heard upon supporting and opposing affidavits and the copies, attached to the complaint, of plaintiff’s pamphlet, “Killer in the Streets,” and the defendants’ pamphlet, “It Can’t Happen to Us.” Each pamphlet deals pictorially in cartoon style with three common types of highway accident resulting from careless driving by members of a family. Only the expression of ideas is copyrightable, and Judge Dawson was of opinion [126 F. Supp. 515] that there was not “sufficient similarity in the execution of the work” to show infringement. The pictures in the accused pamphlet are different from, and superior to, those of the plaintiff’s pamphlet. Even if some of the words ascribed to the pictured characters are sufficiently similar to suggest plagiarism, as to which it is unnecessary to express an opinion, the denial of a temporary injunction was proper, because the affidavits raise a question as to the validity of plaintiff’s copyright on the ground that its pamphlet, under a different title, had been dedicated to the public by prior publication without any copyright notice. Furthermore, the affidavits do not show that money damages will not be an adequate remedy or that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is denied. With respect to the counts alleging unfair competition and misuse of confidential information, there are disputed questions of fact decision of which should await final hearing.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The granting or refusing of an injunction pendente lite is ordinarily a discretionary matter for the district judge, whose decision will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion is apparent. Meccano, Ltd. v. John Wanamaker, 253 U.S. 136, 141, 40 S.Ct. 463, 64 L.Ed. 822; Huber Baking Co. v. Stroehmann Bros. Co., 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 464, 465, 467; Aeolian Co. v. Fischer, 2 Cir., 29 F.2d 679, 681; Behre v. Anchor Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 297 F. 986, 991. We see no such abuse in the case at bar.

The motion was heard upon supporting and opposing affidavits and the copies, attached to the complaint, of plaintiff’s pamphlet, “Killer in the Streets,” and the defendants’ pamphlet, “It Can’t Happen to Us.” Each pamphlet deals pictorially in cartoon style with three common types of highway accident resulting from careless driving by members of a family. Only the expression of ideas is copyrightable, and Judge Dawson was of opinion [126 F. Supp. 515] that there was not “sufficient similarity in the execution of the work” to show infringement. The pictures in the accused pamphlet are different from, and superior to, those of the plaintiff’s pamphlet. Even if some of the words ascribed to the pictured characters are sufficiently similar to suggest plagiarism, as to which it is unnecessary to express an opinion, the denial of a temporary injunction was proper, because the affidavits raise a question as to the validity of plaintiff’s copyright on the ground that its pamphlet, under a different title, had been dedicated to the public by prior publication without any copyright notice. Furthermore, the affidavits do not show that money damages will not be an adequate remedy or that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is denied. With respect to the counts alleging unfair competition and misuse of confidential information, there are disputed questions of fact decision of which should await final hearing.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 F.2d 223, 104 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 222, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-visuals-corporation-v-frederick-a-holland-and-sam-schwartz-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack