Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Prestige Floral, Societe Anonyme v. Zunino-Altman, Inc.

301 F.2d 286

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1962-03-08
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff, owner of a copyright upon an artificial cactus dahlia, made of polyethylene, complains that defendant has imitated its dahlia and infringed its copyright, and seeks a permanent injunction against continued imitation and infringement, for damages, and for other relief. Pending hearing upon the merits of its complaint, plaintiff obtained, ex parte, a restraining order, and prayed that a preliminary injunction also issue to remain in force until final hearing. Defendant moved to vacate the ex parte restraining order. On the cross-motions the district judge below in a reasoned opinion vacated the temporary restraining order and denied the motion for the preliminary injunction.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Prestige Floral, Societe Anonyme v. Zunino-Altman, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
PRESTIGE FLORAL v. ZUNINO-ALTMAN,301 F.2d 286(2nd Cir. 1962)
PRESTIGE FLORAL, SOCIETE ANONYME, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZUNINO-ALTMAN,
INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 299, Docket 27375.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued March 8, 1962.
Decided March 8, 1962.
Page 287
Kane, Dalsimer Kane, New York City (Emil Scheller, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Curtis, Morris Safford, New York City (Daniel L. Morris, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before WATERMAN, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, owner of a copyright upon an artificial cactus dahlia, made of polyethylene, complains that defendant has imitated its dahlia and infringed its copyright, and seeks a permanent injunction against continued imitation and infringement, for damages, and for other relief. Pending hearing upon the merits of its complaint, plaintiff obtained,ex parte,a restraining order, and prayed that a preliminary injunction also issue to remain in force until final hearing. Defendant moved to vacate theex parterestraining order. On the cross-motions the district judge below in a reasoned opinion vacated the temporary restraining order and denied the motion for the preliminary injunction. Plaintiff appeals.

We affirm the district court. We are unpersuaded that in the posture of the case before the district judge the plaintiff made the prima facie showing required of it to obtain a preliminary injunction.