Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel
309 F.2d 745
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1962-11-02
- Topic
- intellectual-property-and-technology
How later courts describe this case
- “faint trace” of originality required
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 20 opinions
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.