Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel

Second Circuit

Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel

309 F.2d 745, 135 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 234, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3748

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 2, 1962·No. 48, Docket 27547·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although it might be thought that the invocation of the power of government to protect designs against infringement implied some merit other than a faint trace of “originality”, it is now settled beyond question that practically anything novel can be copyrighted. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954); Rushton v. Vitale, 218 F.2d 434 (2d Cir.1955). “No matter how poor artistically the ‘author’s’ addition, it is enough if it be his own”. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99, 103 (2d Cir.1951).

There can be no doubt that the copyright on plaintiff's garish trinket was valid and that defendants infringed by copying plaintiff’s product.

Even if, as defendants urge, the copyright notice might not be sufficient for some purposes, because it used the word “Florenza”, plaintiff’s trademark, rather than plaintiff’s name, the defendants, as willful infringers wholly aware of the existence of the copyright, are in no position to assert the insufficiency of the notice. See National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir.1951).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although it might be thought that the invocation of the power of government to protect designs against infringement implied some merit other than a faint trace of “originality”, it is now settled beyond question that practically anything novel can be copyrighted. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954); Rushton v. Vitale, 218 F.2d 434 (2d Cir.1955). “No matter how poor artistically the ‘author’s’ addition, it is enough if it be his own”. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99, 103 (2d Cir.1951).

There can be no doubt that the copyright on plaintiff's garish trinket was valid and that defendants infringed by copying plaintiff’s product.

Even if, as defendants urge, the copyright notice might not be sufficient for some purposes, because it used the word “Florenza”, plaintiff’s trademark, rather than plaintiff’s name, the defendants, as willful infringers wholly aware of the existence of the copyright, are in no position to assert the insufficiency of the notice. See National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir.1951).

Affirmed.

Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel, 309 F.2d 745, 135 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 234, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3748 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

309 F.2d 745 (Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related