Knickerbocker Toy Co., Inc. v. Winterbrook Corp.

554 F. Supp. 1309, 216 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 621, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17047
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedSeptember 30, 1982
DocketCiv. 81-521-D
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 554 F. Supp. 1309 (Knickerbocker Toy Co., Inc. v. Winterbrook Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Knickerbocker Toy Co., Inc. v. Winterbrook Corp., 554 F. Supp. 1309, 216 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 621, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17047 (D.N.H. 1982).

Opinion

ORDER AND OPINION

DEVINE, Chief Judge.

The manufacture and sale of a line of stuffed rag dolls gives rise to the instant copyright infringement action involving one of the world’s largest toy companies and a non-profit community action agency. At stake is the copyright status of two of America’s most beloved and well-known dolls, Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy. Subject matter jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332,1338, and 15 U.S.C. § 15.

Plaintiff Knickerbocker Toy Company, Inc. (“Knickerbocker”), a subsidiary of Warner Communications, is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in New Jersey. Knickerbocker Amended Complaint ¶ 3; St. James Exhibit X-l. Knickerbocker claims that its predecessor corporation, Knickerbocker Toy Company, Inc., a New York corporation, acquired in 1964 the exclusive license from the copyright owners to make and sell Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy stuffed rag dolls. Affidavit of Rod L. White, President of Knickerbocker, ¶¶ 1, 2 (“R. White Affidavit”); Affidavit of Richard Gruelle ¶ 5 (“Gruelle Affidavit”). Knickerbocker has since acquired its own copyright in the famous dolls, Copyright # Gp 55343. Amended Complaint, Exhibit 1. It is this copyright upon which Knickerbocker relied in filing this action.

Defendant St. James Doll Creations (“St. James”) is the “trading style” of an employment project of St. James Parish Community Action, Inc., a non-profit Louisiana corporation. St. James’ Answer and Counterclaim, filed February 1, 1982, ¶32 (“St. James’ Answer”). At its height, St. James’ doll manufacturing operation consisted of several former welfare recipients who worked on a regular basis and over 100 low-income and elderly families working in their homes. Affidavit of Larry LeBeouf, Acting Director, St. James Parish Community Action, Inc., attached to St. James’ Motion to Respond Out of Time, filed January 5, 1982. St. James’ stuffed rag dolls were sold to retailers through its sales representative. LeBoeuf Deposition, St. James’ Exhibit Z-39, 42, 47, 62-63. Defendant Winterbrook Company (“Winter-brook”), a New Hampshire corporation, was one such retailer, allegedly shipping and selling St. James’ stuffed rag dolls from its principal place of business in New Hampshire. Amended Complaint ¶ 4.

This action commenced on October 20, 1981, when Knickerbocker filed a complaint against Winterbrook alleging infringement of Copyright # Gp 55343. Winterbrook in turn filed a third-party complaint against St. James. Knickerbocker subsequently amended its complaint on December 22, 1981, to allege a first-party action against both Winterbrook and St. James. St. James answered the amended complaint on February 3, 1982, denying that Knickerbocker possessed a valid copyright and denying any copyright infringement. St. James further asserts that Knickerbocker engaged in fraudulent conduct before the Copyright Office, and counterclaims for violations of the federal antitrust laws. St. James also counterclaims under state common law causes of action. Based on the acts alleged in its counterclaims, St. James also seeks a declaratory judgment that the Knickerbocker copyright is null, void, and unenforceable.

Knickerbocker filed a motion for preliminary injunction against St. James on December 28, 1981, and a hearing was set for February 11, 1982. The motion was withdrawn on February 9,1982, after a stipulated agreement was reached between Knickerbocker and Winterbrook. This controversy is now before the Court for the first time on the following motions:

—Knickerbocker’s Motion to Amend Complaint;
—St. James’ Motion to Strike Knickerbocker’s Amended Reply to St. James’ Counterclaims;
—St. James’ Motion to Strike Knickerbocker’s Letter to the Court dated June 17, 1982;
*1312 —St. James’ Motion for Summary Judgment or Declaratory Judgment on the issues of copyright validity, copyright infringement, unclean hands, antitrust, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unfair competition;
—Knickerbocker’s Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Claims; and
—Knickerbocker’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense.

The Court has carefully reviewed over 100 pages of pre- and post-hearing briefs of counsel, the compendium of affidavits, depositions, documents under seal, and exhibits submitted, and the additional evidence and oral argument at the hearing on motion for summary judgment, and thus proceeds to its resolution of the pending motions.

The Facts

The facts underlying the instant litigation are complex. Because a factual summary is pertinent to (and only to) the pending motions for summary judgment, the Court summarizes the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (Knickerbocker). Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P.; O’Neil v. Dell Publishing Company, 630 F.2d 685, 686 (1st Cir.1980); Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 464 (1st Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 1495, 47 L.Ed.2d 754 (1976).

The first Raggedy Ann doll was reportedly made in the early part of this century by the grandmother of John B. Gruelle (“Gruelle”), who later acquired fame and fortune as the author of “Raggedy Ann Stories” and “Raggedy Andy Stories”. Gruelle v. Molly-’Es Doll Outfitters, Inc., 94 F.2d 172 (3d Cir.1937), cert. denied, 304 U.S. 561, 58 S.Ct. 943, 82 L.Ed. 1528 (1938). Published in 1918 and 1920, respectively, the books were copyrighted by the Gruelles’ publisher, P.F. Volland & Company (“Vol-land”). Gruelle Affidavit ¶¶3, 4. Both copyrights were renewed by Gruelle’s widow, Myrtle Gruelle, in 1945 and 1947, respectively. Id. Certified copies of the Gruelle copyrights and renewal copyrights have been submitted into evidence by Knickerbocker. Knickerbocker claims that these copyrights are still valid and subsisting and that they afford copyright protection to the Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy dolls in addition to Knickerbocker’s own copyright. 1

Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy dolls have been manufactured by several different companies since the early part of this century. Gruelle obtained a design patent on a Raggedy Ann doll in 1915, Design Patent No. 47,789. St. James Exhibit Q. A copy of the design patent is hereto attached as Appendix A. Volland itself manufactured a version of the Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy dolls in the early part of this century. Affidavit of Leo White, (former) President of Knickerbocker Toy Company, attached to Knickerbocker’s Application for Registration of a Claim to Copyright dated June 22, 1967, Item 19 of the Certified Copies of the Files of the Copyright Office (“L. White Affidavit”).

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

Related

United States v. Rahman
D. New Hampshire, 2020
Santrayall v. Burrell
993 F. Supp. 173 (S.D. New York, 1998)
CMM Cable Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc.
97 F.3d 1504 (First Circuit, 1996)
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Rockingham Venture, Inc.
909 F. Supp. 38 (D. New Hampshire, 1995)
Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc. v. Peacock Jewelry, Inc.
795 F. Supp. 639 (S.D. New York, 1992)
BellSouth Adv. & Pub. v. Donnelley Inf. Pub.
719 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Florida, 1988)
Regents of the University v. Applied Innovations, Inc.
685 F. Supp. 698 (D. Minnesota, 1987)
Sandwiches, Inc. v. Wendy's International, Inc.
654 F. Supp. 1066 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1987)
Past Pluto Productions Corp. v. Dana
627 F. Supp. 1435 (S.D. New York, 1986)
EF Johnson Co. v. Uniden Corp. of America
623 F. Supp. 1485 (D. Minnesota, 1985)
Sadler v. Rexair, Inc.
612 F. Supp. 491 (D. Montana, 1985)
Toro Company v. R & R PRODUCTS CO.
600 F. Supp. 400 (D. Minnesota, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
554 F. Supp. 1309, 216 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 621, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knickerbocker-toy-co-inc-v-winterbrook-corp-nhd-1982.