National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.

Second Circuit

National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.

198 F.2d 927, 94 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 289

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 5, 1952

Docket21832_1

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 198 F.2d 927 (National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.) 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

National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 198 F.2d 927, 94 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 289 (2d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In spite of the ending of the term at which our mandate went down, we have power over our mandate, not only to declare what we meant, but to change it as we think the situation demands. § 452, Title 28, U.S.C. The petition asks us to say whether we meant to find that “Faw-cett” infringed the plaintiff’s lawfully copyrighted strips; and it asks us to direct the district court to issue an injunction. We think it best to leave open to the district court the question whether an injunction shall issue, since that is always a discretionary matter.

We did mean to say that “Fawcett” infringed some of the strips which the plaintiff put in suit, assuming that these had been lawfully copyrighted and the copyright had not been forfeited. This we ¡held because " “Fawcett” had argued that none of its strips infringed any of the plaintiff’s; and it was a necessary finding, if we were to proceed to the other questions, which without any such finding would have become moot.

On the other hand, we did not find which of the strips, which the plaintiff put in suit “Fawcett” had infringed: i. e., copied so closely as to be actionable under Detective Comics v. Bruns Publications, 2 Cir., 111 F.2d 432. That will demand a comparison of each strip put in suit by the plaintiff with “Fawcett’s” strip, which the plaintiff asserts does so closely copy that particular strip. Each such comparison really involves the decision of a separate claim; there is no escape from it. The plaintiff may put in suit as many strips as it pleases, but it must prove infringement of each, or it will lose as to that strip. In saying that “Fawcett” was an “unabashed” infringer we meant no more than that there were some such instances. Whether the strips so copied were protected by a valid copyright we did not say.

The plaintiff -has the burden of proving as to any strip it puts in suit that it was validly copyrighted; but we leave it open whether “Fawcett” has the burden of proving whether any copyright, once proved to have been validly obtained, was later forfeited.

Further than the foregoing we refuse to go. This memorandum will be taken as incorporated into our original opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

In spite of the ending of the term at which our mandate went down, we have power over our mandate, not only to declare what we meant, but to change it as we think the situation demands. § 452, Title 28, U.S.C. The petition asks us to say whether we meant to find that “Faw-cett” infringed the plaintiff’s lawfully copyrighted strips; and it asks us to direct the district court to issue an injunction. We think it best to leave open to the district court the question whether an injunction shall issue, since that is always a discretionary matter.

We did mean to say that “Fawcett” infringed some of the strips which the plaintiff put in suit, assuming that these had been lawfully copyrighted and the copyright had not been forfeited. This we ¡held because " “Fawcett” had argued that none of its strips infringed any of the plaintiff’s; and it was a necessary finding, if we were to proceed to the other questions, which without any such finding would have become moot.

On the other hand, we did not find which of the strips, which the plaintiff put in suit “Fawcett” had infringed: i. e., copied so closely as to be actionable under Detective Comics v. Bruns Publications, 2 Cir., 111 F.2d 432. That will demand a comparison of each strip put in suit by the plaintiff with “Fawcett’s” strip, which the plaintiff asserts does so closely copy that particular strip. Each such comparison really involves the decision of a separate claim; there is no escape from it. The plaintiff may put in suit as many strips as it pleases, but it must prove infringement of each, or it will lose as to that strip. In saying that “Fawcett” was an “unabashed” infringer we meant no more than that there were some such instances. Whether the strips so copied were protected by a valid copyright we did not say.

The plaintiff -has the burden of proving as to any strip it puts in suit that it was validly copyrighted; but we leave it open whether “Fawcett” has the burden of proving whether any copyright, once proved to have been validly obtained, was later forfeited.

Further than the foregoing we refuse to go. This memorandum will be taken as incorporated into our original opinion.

Donald Frederick Evans and Associates, Inc., D/B/A the Evans Group, Etc., Cross-Appellee v. Continental Homes, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Complete Interiors, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and David Mann Meadows, Cross- Donald Frederick Evans and Associates, Inc., Cross v. David Mann Meadows, an Individual, Complete Interiors, Inc., D/B/A Continental Homes, Cross-Appellants

785 F.2d 897 (Eleventh Circuit, 1986)

Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc.

541 F. Supp. 231 (S.D. New York, 1982)

Walt Disney Productions v. The Air Pirates

581 F.2d 751 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)

Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States

487 F.2d 1345 (Court of Claims, 1973)

Leon B. Rosenblatt Textiles Ltd. v. M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.

321 F. Supp. 186 (S.D. New York, 1970)

Braniff Airways, Inc., Phillip Addabbo, and Morton D. Stein, as of the Estate of Maurice Berg, Deceased v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation

424 F.2d 427 (Second Circuit, 1970)

Life Music, Inc. v. Wonderland Music Company

241 F. Supp. 653 (S.D. New York, 1965)

Davis v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

240 F. Supp. 612 (S.D. New York, 1965)

Intermountain Broadcasting & Television Corp. v. Idaho Microwave, Inc.

196 F. Supp. 315 (D. Idaho, 1961)

Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil & Refining Company

296 F.2d 215 (Fifth Circuit, 1961)

Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. And Henry Glass & Co. v. Martin Weiner Corp.

274 F.2d 487 (Second Circuit, 1960)

Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Acadia Company

173 F. Supp. 292 (S.D. New York, 1959)

Bank of America v. Loew's International Corporation

163 F. Supp. 924 (S.D. New York, 1958)

United States v. 63.04 Acres Of Land, More Or Less, Situate At Lido Beach, Near City Of Long Beach, Town Of Hempstead, County Of Nassau, State Of New York

257 F.2d 68 (Second Circuit, 1958)

United States v. 63.04 Acres of Land

257 F.2d 68 (Second Circuit, 1958)

Continental Casualty Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant v. Hulbert T. E. Beardsley and H. T. E. Beardsley, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Appellees

253 F.2d 702 (Second Circuit, 1958)

Eva Hines v. Royal Indemnity Company

253 F.2d 111 (Sixth Circuit, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 F.2d 927, 94 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-comics-publications-inc-v-fawcett-publications-inc-ca2-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack