Serbin, Inc. v. Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc., Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc. v. Serbin, Inc.

381 F.2d 735, 155 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 113, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5339
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 14, 1967
Docket24067
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 381 F.2d 735 (Serbin, Inc. v. Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc., Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc. v. Serbin, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Serbin, Inc. v. Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc., Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc. v. Serbin, Inc., 381 F.2d 735, 155 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 113, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5339 (5th Cir. 1967).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Serbin, Inc. (Serbin), defendant in the District Court, appeals from a final judgment in favor of Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc. (Key West) finding infringement of two copyrights, No. K67524 (“Zuzek Rose Butter”) and No. K66990 (“Dragon”). On appeal Serbin has raised points directed only to matters affecting liability. No question is raised as to the District Court’s award of statutory damages 1 of $5,000 on each of the two counts, and of attorneys’ fees 2 of $10,000.

Key West cross-appeals from the dismissal by the District Court, without prejudice, of a claim involving a third copyright K67222 (“Bougainvilla”) for lack of an indispensable party plaintiff, one Charles Cervantes, in whose name the copyright was jointly registered. Key West does not question here the correctness of the District Court’s dismissal, *736 for failure of proof, of its claim involving unfair competition. 3

The District Court’s opinion is reported in 269 F.Supp. 605. For the reasons carefully reviewed and enunciated there, requiring no elaboration by us, we affirm both as to the original appeal and the cross-appeal. As to the District Court’s disposition of other matters (supra) not raised on either appeal or cross-appeal here, we of course express no views.

Key West applies for the allowance under the statute of additional attorneys’ fees as a part of the costs for this appeal. The statute contemplates such fees. We deem it proper that such allowance be considered by the District Court rather than this court, and direct that that court consider an application therefor by Key West upon the going down of our mandate. D/S Ove Skou v. Hebert, 365 F.2d 341 (5 Cir. 1966) at 353.

Affirmed, with directions.

1

. Title 17, U.S.C. Sec. 101(b).

2

. Title 17, U.S.C. See. 116.

3

. Title 28, U.S.C. Sec. 1338(b).

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

Related

Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. RK Texas Leather Mfg.
923 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (S.D. California, 2013)
Jackson v. Axton
25 F.3d 884 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Ruskin v. Sunrise Management, Inc.
506 F. Supp. 1284 (D. Colorado, 1981)
Russell v. Price
612 F.2d 1123 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Newton v. Voris
364 F. Supp. 562 (D. Oregon, 1973)
Champion Map Corporation v. Twin Printing Co.
350 F. Supp. 1332 (E.D. North Carolina, 1971)
Showers v. Det Bergenski Dampskibsselskab
447 F.2d 1366 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 F.2d 735, 155 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 113, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serbin-inc-v-key-west-hand-print-fabrics-inc-key-west-hand-print-ca5-1967.