Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo
The latest Hartsel weather.

 

  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Last updated August 11, 2013

Use Of Fabrics Law Suits
Through Google Scholar

Google Scholar is an interesting law source. It is located at http://scholar.google.com/. It is a valuable reference site for legal articles and case law. It has been expanding its database year after year.

Starting August 4, 2013, we entered various search criteria concerning the use of fabrics and federal lawsuits. We rearched federal courts because all copyright cases are federal jurisdiction as are most trademark cases. The results are very interesting and they support our contention that our retractors are very mistaken. Some of the hits were articles or law review papers. We used the singular and the plural in various combinations for the searches. Some searches returned duplicate hits to other searches.

  • +"copyrighted fabric" got 74 hits. 41 were actual court cases. Google Scholar picked up the articles because of key words or references.
  • +"copyrighted fabrics" got 7 hits
  • +"licensed fabrics" got one hit.
  • +"licensed fabric" got 4 hits.
  • +"trademarked fabric" got 3 hits.
  • +"trademarked fabrics" got one hit.
  • +"on selvage" got 12 hits, two of which were criminal cases concerning prisoners.
  • +"copyright on selvage", +"license on selvage", and +"statement on selvage" all returned zero hits.
Some cases had nothing to do with "fabric" but referenced cases where statements involving "fabric" were quoted to support an argument or a decision. Some listed cases were where Google Scholar shows "citations" only. Considering the outrage from many sources about using fabrics for profit, Etsy Mavens and others immediately come to mind, the federal court cases that addressed the use of "fabric" shows most of those people who are saying it is not allowed are completely WRONG. Below we list the cases, alphabetically, returned in the search. Only Precious Moments addressed the use of copyrighted fabrics for making and selling items without the permission of the rights holder.

Considering the massive volume of fabrics being used to make and sell items, one could reasonably expect a lot of court cases where the manufacturer of a fabric or the owner of the design on the fabric had sued to stop someone from using their fabrics to make and sell items. There are virtually none. Why? Because companies selling fabrics know it is a losing lawsuit. But that fact does not stop them from making threats.

The cases are listed below. Also listed are quotes taken directly from the court documents shown to give you an idea the reason for the case and for the decision of the court. Very few quotes have been edited. Virtually every case involving "fabric" involved the illegal copying of copyrighted designs. Only ONE case involved using copyrighted fabric to make and sell items. That case was

  • Precious Moments vs La Infantil, click on the link for the full decision

    1. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts 191 F. 2d 99 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1951 "Original" in reference to a copyrighted work means that the particular work "owes its origin" to the "author." No large measure of novelty is necessary.

      We (the court) consider untenable defendants' suggestion that plaintiff's mezzotints could not validly be copyrighted because they are reproductions of works in the public domain. For a copyright confers the exclusive right to copy the copyrighted work - a right not to have others copy it. Nor were the copyrights lost because of the reproduction of the mezzotints in catalogues.
      [+"copyrighted fabrics" search]

    2. Briddle v. Scott 63 F. 3d 364 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1995 CRIMINAL CASE
      [+"on selvage" search]
    3. Concord Fabrics, Inc. v. Generation Mills, Inc. 328 F. Supp. 1030, 169 USPQ 470 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1971 Plaintiff Concord Fabrics, Inc., seeks a preliminary injunction against alleged infringement by defendant, Generation Mills, Inc., of a copyrighted fabric design.

      In conclusion: plaintiff's proper claim to originality is an extremely limited one. In this context, defendant's variations are significant, and it has not infringed the "claimed originality and the distinctive features of plaintiff's [design]," Millworth Converting Corporation v. Slifka, supra, 276 F.2d at 445.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    4. CORTLEY FABRICS COMPANY v. Slifka 175 F. Supp. 66 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1959 This is an application for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., enjoining the defendants from alleged infringement of a copyrighted reproduction of a work of art on fabric

      The motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search], [+"on selvage" search]

    5. Couleur International Ltd. v. Opulent Fabrics Inc. 330 F. Supp. 152 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1971 Plaintiff has moved by order to show cause for a preliminary injunction against defendants' alleged infringement of a copyrighted fabric design. A temporary restraining order, issued by Judge McLean on January 6, 1971, after adversary submissions, has remained in effect until now. For the reasons given below, the motion for a preliminary injunction will be granted.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]
    6. Deltak, Inc. v. Advanced Systems, Inc. 574 F. Supp. 400 - Dist. Court, ND Illinois, 1983 Deltak and ASI are two of the three largest firms in the business of selling video and audio tapes and textbooks used to teach data processing. no reference

      To summarize, I find that Deltak has failed to prove damages from the infringement.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    7. Design Options, Inc. v. BellePointe, Inc. 940 F. Supp. 86 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1996 Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on October 3, 1994, alleging copyright infringement by BellePointe of fifteen sweater styles that had been designed and created by Design Options and previously sold to BellePointe.

      BellePointe claims that the package price it paid for each sweater represented an investment in the underlying sweater designs, which investment could not be realized unless it had the right to copy the designs. But there is no evidence that there was anything more to the transaction between BellePointe and Design Options than the purchase of goods for an agreed-upon price.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    8. Design Resources, Inc. v. John Wolf Decorative Fabrics [CITATION only]
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]
    9. Greeff Fabrics, Inc. v. Malden Mills Industries, Inc. 412 F. Supp. 160 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1976 However, some time prior to the fall of 1975, petitioner discovered a textile fabric called "Camelot," produced and sold by Belle Fabrics, Inc. ("Belle"), which embodied its copyrighted "Contemplation" design. It is respondent's position that its challenged fabric design was innocently copied from a sample \ of "Camelot" fabric which bore no copyright notice.

      On the present state of the record the Court is unable to make a final determination as to whether the instant situation falls within the ambit of the foregoing limited exception to the copyright notice requirement.
      [+"on selvage" search]

    10. Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Department Stores 82 F. 3d 1533 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, 1996 This appeal arises from a jury verdict entered in a copyright infringement action. Plaintiffs Harold's Stores, Inc. ("Harold's") and CMT Enterprises, Inc. ("CMT") filed suit against Defendant Dillard Department Stores, Inc. ("Dillard")[1] alleging that Dillard infringed Harold's copyrighted fabric designs contained on women's garments, predominately skirts.

      In sum, we hold the district court did not err by: (1) concluding that the Copyright Act did not preempt Harold's claim under the Oklahoma Antitrust Act; (2) admitting Dr. Howard's survey; and (3) denying Dillard's renewal motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    11. Horizon Mills Corp. v. QVC, Inc. 161 F. Supp. 2d 208 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 2001 This action, filed on March 24, 2000, arises out of defendant's use of the term "Slinky" to advertise women's apparel for home shopping customers. Plaintiff, the owner of the trademark in SLINKY for "fabrics used in clothing and household products," alleges claims for trademark infringement Defendant moves for summary judgment as to each of plaintiff's claims on the ground that plaintiff's mark is generic.

      For the foregoing reasons, QVC's motion for summary judgment is denied.
      [+"trademarked fabric" search]

    12. Imperial Textile Co. of NY v. Ametex Fabrics Inc. 682 F. Supp. 18 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1987 Plaintiff Imperial Textile Company of New York, Inc., a converter of textiles, seeks a preliminary injunction against Ametex Fabrics Inc., another textile converter, based on Ametex's alleged infringement of Imperial's copyrighted fabric design.

      Accordingly, Imperial's preliminary injunction restraining defendant's continued sale of its infringing fabric design in whatever color combinations is granted. Plaintiff has demonstrated both a likelihood of success on the merits, see supra, and possible irreparable injury.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    13. Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Company, Inc. 375 F. Supp. 1 - Dist. Court, ND California, 1974 Koratron seeks to recover from certain garment makers license royalties for the use of the patented process or damages for infringement of the patent after expiration of their respective licenses.

      PATENT CASE
      [+"licensed fabric" search], [+"trademarked fabric" search], [+"trademarked fabrics" search]

    14. JBJ Fabrics, Inc. v. Brylane, Inc. 714 F. Supp. 107 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1989 Plaintiff JBJ Fabrics, Inc. ("JBJ") brings this action for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 101 (1982) alleging that defendant Brylane Inc. ("Brylane") manufactured and sold garments imprinted with plaintiff's copyrighted design. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff does not hold a valid copyright. For the reasons that follow, defendant's motion is denied.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]
    15. Kenbrooke Fabrics, Inc. v. Soho Fashions, Inc. 690 F. Supp. 298 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1988 On January 23, 1979 Soptra Fabrics, Inc. ("Soptra"), not a party to this action, was granted Certificate of Copyright Registration, No. VA 17-255 for a fabric design then known as Pattern No. 10220, now known as No. 1779.

      For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion for summary judgment and for attorneys' fees is denied.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    16. Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc. v. Serbin, Inc. 244 F. Supp. 287 - Dist. Court, SD Florida, 1965 Thereafter, the infringing fabric designs were made for defendant by C. and J. Ryan Co., a manufacturing establishment operated by the brothers of the defendant's designer. Actually, the defendant had no artists who created fabric designs. It selected fabrics from others for the manufacture of its dresses. It follows that Counts One and Four of the Complaint should be dismissed; that plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining and enjoining the defendant from directly or indirectly infringing copyrights No. K67524 and No. K66990 by either making or causing to be made, selling or causing to be sold, copies of these copyrights.

      I therefore find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from the defendant under the statute in the sum of $5,000.00 for infringing plaintiff's copyright K67524 (Zuzek Rose Butter) and $5,000.00 for infringing plaintiff's copyright K66990 (Dragon), or a total of $10,000.00.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search], [+"copyrighted fabrics" search]

    17. Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc. v. Serbin, Inc. 269 F. Supp. 605 - Dist. Court, SD Florida, 1966 Thereafter, the infringing fabric designs were made for defendant by C. and J. Ryan Co., a manufacturing establishment operated by the brothers of the defendant's designer. Actually, the defendant had no artists who created fabric designs. It selected fabrics from others for the manufacture of its dresses.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search], [+"on selvage" search]
    18. Kirk-Brummel Associates, Inc. v. dePoortere Corp. 203 USPQ 940 - 1979 [CITATION only]
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]
    19. KIS, SA v. Foto Fantasy, Inc. 204 F. Supp. 2d 968 - Dist. Court, ND Texas, 2001 Plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim stems from Defendants' use of drawings of Tom Cruise and Marilyn Monroe on the outside of their photo booths. Defendants and Plaintiffs both own photo booths that are placed inside malls around the country reference to "Dillars's"

      In conclusion, the Court finds that Defendants' criticism of Dr. Howard's survey methodology, although it may be persuasive, goes only to the weight, and not the admissibility, of the evidence. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Strike Dr. Howard's expert report and trial testimony is DENIED.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    20. Koratron Co., Inc. v. Lion Uniform, Inc.409 F. Supp. 1019 - Dist. Court, ND California, 1976 This suit for patent infringement was brought by plaintiff Koratron Company, Inc. (Koratron), against defendant Lion Uniform, Inc. (Lion).

      PATENT CASE
      [+"trademarked fabric" search]

    21. Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc. 736 F. 2d 485 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 1984

      no references to copyrighted fabric
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    22. Langman Fabrics v. Samsung America, Inc. 967 F. Supp. 131, 43 USPQ 2d 1534 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1997 This copyright infringement case involves the alleged copying by defendants of plaintiff's copyrighted fabric design. Both the plaintiff and the defendants moved for summary judgment. Because the plaintiff does not hold the copyright in the fabric design, or in the alternative because its copyright notice was defective, defendants' motion for summary judgment must be granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]
    23. Lauratex Textile Corp. v. Allton Knitting Mills 519 F. Supp. 730 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1981 The plaintiff accuses the defendants Allton Knitting Mills, Inc. ... of duplicating a fabric design which plaintiff had created, copyrighted and successfully sold in the market. The defendants allegedly sold this copied version to several of plaintiff's customers at a lower price.

      Regardless of where the defendant claims he actually obtained the pattern, it is clear that the plaintiff had a valid copyright on the design, that the defendants had a reasonable opportunity to copy that design since January, 1980 when plaintiff first sold it, and that the defendants produced an identical design thereafter.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    24. LEON B. ROSENBLATT TEX. LTD. v. M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. 321 F. Supp. 186 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1970 For purposes of this motion at least defendant's papers herein no where contest the originality of plaintiff's design, the issuance of a copyright to plaintiff, or the allegation that defendant's design infringes that copyright.

      Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's application is granted.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search], [+"copyrighted fabrics" search]

    25. Lever Bros. Co. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING 668 F. Supp. 924, 5 USPQ 2d 1239 - Dist. Court, D. New Jersey, 1987 Presumably, however, the Gaiser and Morton patents cover different inventions and a Gaiser/McQueary-licensed fabric softener could be manufactured that would steer clear of the Morton inventions.

      PATENT CASE
      [+"licensed fabric" search]

    26. LIBERTAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CHERRYHILL MANAGEMENT, INC. Dist. Court, SD Ohio, 2012 software case, no references to copyrighted fabric
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]
    27. Lida, Inc. v. Texollini, Inc. 768 F. Supp. 439 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1991 Subsequently, garments made with a design almost identical to the Michelangelo design and manufactured by Texollini, appeared in stores under B.B. Blu's label. Texollini's rendition sold in the marketplace at a price substantially lower than that charged for Lida's Michelangelo.

      For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary injunction shall issue and B.B. Blu will be required to supply, within ten days of the date hereof, a list of its customers to Lida.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    28. Millworth Converting Corporation v. Slifka 180 F. Supp. 840 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1960 The result was that a design which was made by embroidery, and which was not copyrighted, was photographed and then transferred by the engraver or printing establishment into a printed form on the materials prepared by the plaintiff.

      Thereafter defendants have been manufacturing and distributing another grade of cloth on which they have, in effect, copied plaintiff's reproduction of the copyrighted design. The copies submitted are so substantially the same in appearance that it is virtually impossible to distinguish one from the other, although there may be slight variations which could be ascertained by a minute examination of the particular designs.

      The Court concludes that the copyrights are valid and that they are being infringed by the defendants, which is sufficient basis to require that a preliminary injunction issue.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    29. Millworth Converting Corporation v. Slifka 276 F. 2d 443 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1960 As in Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 2 Cir., 274 F.2d 487, these appeals from orders granting temporary injunctions bring before us questions arising from the use of copyright to protect fabric designs.

      For here, in contrast, the basic design was in the public domain and plaintiff was entitled to relief only if defendants copied its "expression," as the defendant in Alfred Bell v. Catalda Fine Arts, supra, was found to have done
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    30. Mister B Textiles Inc. v. Woodcrest Fabrics, Inc. 523 F. Supp. 21 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1981 This case comes before the court on a motion by plaintiff, Mr. B Textiles (Mr. B), for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant, Woodcrest Fabrics, Inc. (Woodcrest), from selling certain fabrics which allegedly infringe on copyrighted fabrics manufactured by plaintiff.

      Therefore, as provided in the order filed simultaneously herewith, the temporary restraining orders issued by this court on October 23, 1980, and November 26, 1980, against defendants Woodcrest and Cobina, respectively, are hereby extended as preliminary injunctions.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search], [+"copyrighted fabrics" search]

    31. Myers v. Waverly Fabrics, Div. of F. Schumacher & Co. 101 AD 2d 777, 475 NYS 2d 860 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept., 1984 The complaint herein alleges that plaintiff sold the right to defendant to reproduce a design "solely on fabric" (and on wallpaper, as now conceded by plaintiff), and that in granting licenses to others to reproduce the design on other than fabric, defendants acted "in direct contravention of the terms of the agreement between plaintiff and defendant".

      Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered May 13, 1983, denying summary judgment to the defendant, should be affirmed.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    32. National Basketball Ass'n v. Sports Team Analysis 931 F. Supp. 1124 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1996 As set forth in detail below, I find that through the SportsTrax product, defendants disseminated to NBA fans game information on a real-time basis

      For the foregoing reasons, I hold that defendants' conduct in connection with SportsTrax constitutes commercial misappropriation and that plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief to remedy defendants' ongoing unlawful conduct.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    33. NAT. BASKETBALL ASS'N v. Sports Team Analysis 939 F. Supp. 1071 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1996

      no references to copyrighted fabric

      For the foregoing reasons, I hold that defendants' conduct in connection with SportsTrax and Stats' AOL site constitutes commercial misappropriation and that plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief to remedy defendants' ongoing unlawful conduct
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    34. Novelty Textile Mills v. Joan Fabrics Corp. 558 F. 2d 1090 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1977 This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Werker, D. J.) denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction against the continued use by defendant of a fabric design which it allegedly copied from plaintiff's fabric design. The complaint charges copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 101, 112 and 116 and seeks a permanent injunction, impoundment and destruction of the allegedly infringing copies, and damages. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).

      I would rule now that, except for the "Fleetwood Spice" and "Sand" designs, there was no infringement of Novelty's 253 and to that extent affirm the decision of the district court.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    35. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Acadia Company 173 F. Supp. 292 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1959 Plaintiffs, Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. and Henry Glass & Co. (hereinafter "Peter Pan" and "Glass," respectively), have moved for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs allege that original works of art entitled Style 680, Range 1, Byzantium (hereinafter "Byzantium"), and Style 680, Range 11, Grecian Glory (hereinafter "Grecian Glory"), were created by Pierre Kittler Studio in Paris, France; that the original designs were sold to Peter Pan; that these original works of art were reproduced as a design for textiles, and as such were submitted after satisfying all the requirements of the Copyright Laws (Act of July 30, 1947, c. 391, sec. 1; 61 Stat. 652; 17 U.S.C.A. 1-32); and that a certificate of copyright was duly issued to Peter Pan for Byzantium (Certificate No. H 7290, dated July 9, 1958) and for Grecian Glory (Certificate No. H 7218, dated July 9, 1958).

      Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against both defendants.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    36. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Dixon Textile Corporation 188 F. Supp. 235 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1960 The court in the Martin Weiner Corp. case, Hand, Circuit Judge, stated that "the absence of `notice' is a defence that the copyist must prove, and that the burden is on him to show that `notice' could have been embodied in the design without impairing its market value."

      Since it is now established that the defendant deliberately copied plaintiffs' copyrighted design and the notice of copyright was adequate, plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction regardless of the alleged lack of knowledge of the copyright by the defendant at the time of the initial infringement.
      [+"on selvage" search]

    37. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp. 274 F. 2d 487 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1960 This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction, granted by Judge Herlands, forbidding the defendant to copy an ornamental design, printed upon cloth. Whatever may be shown at the trial, upon this record we hold that the "design" should be protected, pendente lite. Order affirmed.
      [+"copyrighted fabrics" search], [+"on selvage" search]
    38. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Puritan Dress Co. Inc. 207 F. Supp. 563, 133 USPQ 678 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1962 In these cases the plaintiff claimed infringement of its Byzantium design by Martin Weiner Corporation, the manufacturer of the fabric which was copied from the design, and various dress manufacturers who purchased the copied fabric manufactured by Weiner, and sold dresses made of that fabric.

      Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant accordingly.
      [+"on selvage" search]

    39. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Jobela Fabrics, Inc. 329 F. 2d 194 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1964 Appellants [Peter Pan] brought this action for injunctive relief and for damages arising out of appellee's infringement of a textile print design for which appellants had obtained a copyright. Appellee consented to summary judgment and a permanent injunction was entered in appellants' favor.

      Reversed and remanded so that upon such remand the District Court may consider an award, if any, of such damages as to the Court shall appear to be just.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    40. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Dan River Mills, Inc. 295 F. Supp. 1366 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1969 This is an action for copyright infringement. Plaintiffs allege that defendant copied their design, known as "Style 2464, Range 11, `Daisies'," which plaintiffs registered as a reproduction of a work of art[1] and for which the Copyright Office issued Copyright No. H-28688 on June 1, 1965.

      Plaintiffs have demonstrated that their design is original and that defendant had access to their design and actually copied it
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    41. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Rosstex Fabrics, Inc. 733 F. Supp. 174 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1990 This is an action for copyright infringement. Plaintiffs allege that defendants copied their design, "Style 1403, Range 100, Patt. 14261X" for which the Register of Copyrights issued Copyright No. VA 218-543.[1] This design is printed on fabric and sold by plaintiffs.

      Defendants move under Rule 56, Fed.R. Civ.P., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs' copyright is invalid. Plaintiffs cross-move for summary judgment granting them a permanent injunction against defendants and damages. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied and plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is granted.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    42. Precious Moments, Inc. v. La Infantil, Inc. 971 F. Supp. 66 - Dist. Court, D. Puerto Rico, 1997 Defendant La Infantil, Inc., is a retail store that sells baby products, including furniture, bedding, clothes, and accessories. Some of the bedding it sells is manufactured by Teresita Martin Sewing Service from authentic, lawfully-acquired Precious Moments fabrics.

      For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Precious Moments, Inc.'s, motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 6) is hereby DENIED as to the copyright claim and GRANTED as to the trademark and unfair competition claims to the extent set forth above. Defendant La Infantil shall modify the tags included with products manufactured from Precious Moments fabric in accordance with this opinion.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search], [+"copyrighted fabrics" search]

    43. Princess Fabrics, Inc. v. CHF, INC. 922 F. 2d 99 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1990 In 1987, Harold Kfare, a sales representative of third-party defendant (hereinafter "Raschel"), a manufacturer of textiles and a supplier to CHF, purchased a piece of Princess's fabric Style M/179 from a retail store located in Flemington, New Jersey. Kfare testified that the fabric bore no notice of copyright. Kfare took the fabric sample to CHF who, in designing its own lace curtain, made slight modifications to the pattern found in the fabric sample.

      We hold that the district court did not err in finding that Princess had forfeited copyright protection through lack of notice. Nor did the court below err in holding that Princess had failed to protect itself by taking steps to cure pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 405(a)(2).
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    44. Segrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., Inc. 42 F. Supp. 2d 58 - Dist. Court, D. Massachusetts, 1998 The controversy depicted in the original complaint stems from Gillman's production and distribution of a sweater vest under the name of Christie (the "Christie I sweater"). Thereafter, Segrets amended its complaint to allege additional counts for copyright infringement and violation of the Lanham Act due to Gillman's production and distribution of a cardigan sweater under the name of Charro (the "Charro sweater").

      Gillman's attitude that it could succeed in avoiding responsibility for its infringing conduct is further exemplified by its attempts to discourage Segrets from proceeding forward with this lawsuit.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    45. Selvage v. Lynaugh 842 F. 2d 89 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1988 CRIMINAL CASE
      [+"on selvage" search]
    46. Soptra Fabrics Corp. v. Stafford Knitting Mills, Inc. 365 F. Supp. 1199 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1973 Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction for the alleged infringement by the defendant of plaintiff's copyrighted fabric design No. 5700. Thereafter the defendant's stylist visited the Cindy Carol factory and from there took a piece of plaintiff's No. 5700 to the Victory Design Studios (hereinafter "Victory"). The defendant's stylist requested Oscar Hyman, one of Victory's salesmen, to prepare a design which would be competitive with plaintiff's No. 5700 but which would not infringe on it.

      Having found the defendant's design to be non-infringing, it is not necessary to rule on defendant's argument that the plaintiff's copyright itself is invalid for lack of originality.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    47. Stevens Linen Associates, Inc. v. Mastercraft Corp. 656 F. 2d 11 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1981 The district court held that defendant's fabrics "Rio Grande" and "Grand Canyon" infringed plaintiff's copyright for its Chestertown fabric, granted a permanent injunction barring future sales of the infringing fabrics, and awarded plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees.

      Finally, upon remand, the court should consider an additional award of damages based upon the Mastercraft invoices introduced by Stevens which bear dates subsequent to the entry of the injunction.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    48. Textile Secrets Intern., Inc. v. Ya-Ya Brand Inc. 524 F. Supp. 2d 1184 - Dist. Court, CD California, 2007 Ya-Ya created five different garment styles bearing designs similar to FEATHERS and offered them for sale for one month primarily through Ya-Ya's showrooms in Los Angeles and New York.

      For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to the first and second causes of action involving claims of copyright infringement, and granted with respect to the third cause of action alleging a violation of 17 U.S.C. 1202.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    49. United Fabrics Intern., Inc. v. C&J WEAR, INC. 630 F. 3d 1255 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2011 United's action made it as far as the summary judgment phase, at which point the district court dismissed the case sua sponte, concluding that United lacked standing to pursue its copyright claims. The district court ruled that United failed to establish an element that is crucial to all copyright infringement actions: ownership of a valid copyright.

      United appeals the district court's order dismissing this case. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]

    50. United Merchants and Manufacturers, Inc. v. Sarne Company 278 F. Supp. 162 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1967 A comparison of the design on defendant's fabric bag with plaintiffs' "Caribe" design convinces me that the average lay observer would consider them to be the same. Indeed, except for some minor variations in a few flower designs, the shape, size, color, arrangement and background of the flowers are so similar that the defendant's design appears to have been copied from plaintiffs' "Caribe". As for the minor variations, "the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard [the] aesthetic appeal as the same."

      Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is granted.
      [+"on selvage" search]

    51. United Merchants and Manufacturers, Inc. v. Sutton 282 F. Supp. 588, 157 USPQ 487 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1967 In this action to enjoin defendants from pirating plaintiffs' designs and for damages, plaintiffs move herein to preliminarily enjoin defendants from infringing valid copyrights, competing unfairly and from taking other related action. Plaintiffs allege that defendants, through the guise of sampling plaintiffs' original design fabrics, have copied these designs and placed them on fabric "tote" bags manufactured in Japan which they then sold to various department stores throughout the country.

      Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion is granted only insofar as it seeks to enjoin defendants from infringing the "Bahama" and "Bramble" designs.
      [+"on selvage" search]

    52. United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc. v. K. Gimbel Accessories, Inc. 294 F. Supp. 151 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1968 Plaintiff United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. ("United"), a converter of textiles from raw uncolored fabrics into colored design-bearing finished fabrics, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Pattern Rights, Inc., seek a preliminary injunction restraining defendant, an importer of fabric-covered luggage from infringing plaintiffs' copyright in certain patterns and designs.

      After careful comparison of each of defendant's luggage pieces with plaintiffs' copyrighted fabrics, the Court concludes that each of defendant's luggage pieces contains designs which are substantially similar to a copyrighted design owned by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is granted..
      [+"copyrighted fabrics" search]

    53. United States v. Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. 9 Cust. Ct. 591 - 1942 [CITATION only]
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]
    54. Walt Disney Co. v. Powell 897 F. 2d 565 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit, 1990 At the time this suit arose, appellant conducted a wholesale souvenir business, selling items to local tourists through street vendors. Included in his inventory were shirts with mouse faces printed on them that resembled Mickey and Minnie Mouse.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]
    55. ZELOUF INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. KANDY KISS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. Dist. Court, SD New York, 2009 Briefly stated, the complaint alleges that defendant Kandy Kiss of California, Inc., a garment manufacturer, obtained access to plaintiff's copyrighted fabric designs, supplied samples of those fabrics to Morex for the purpose of having Morex "knock off" the fabric designs, purchased the infringing fabric from Morex, and used it to manufacture garments, which it sold to defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co., which in turn sold the goods through its Internet web site

      For the foregoing reasons, Morex's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction [docket item 10] is granted.
      [+"copyrighted fabric" search]


    General
    Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions

    Corporate Lawyers
    Cartoons | Code Of Ethics | Courtroom Remarks | Definition Of A Lie | Jokes | Lawyers | Lying | Who Have Lied

    eBay - Land The Game

    Links
    Auction Bytes | Public Citizen Litigation Group

    Definitions

    Trademark Definitions
    Blurring   |   Confusion   |   Damages   |   Dilution   |   History   |   Initial Interest Confusion   |   Likelihood Of Confusion   |   Material Difference Standard
    Parallel Imports   |   Post-sale Confusion   |   Puffery   |   Secondary Meaning   |   Subsequent Confusion   |   Trademark Abuse
    Unauthorized Use   |   Unfair Competition   |   What is a Trademark?
    Copyright Definitions
    Angel Policies   |   Contributory Infringement   |   Copyrightability   |   Copyright Extortion   |   Copyright Misuse Doctrine   |   Derivative   |   The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    EULA   |   Fair Use   |   First Sale Doctrine   |   Product Description   |   Registration   |   Registration Denied   |   What is a Copyright?   |   What is not Copyrightable?
    Other Issues
    Embroidery Designs   |   FAQs & Whines   |   Image and Text Theft   |   Licensed Fabric   |   Licensing & Licenses   |   Patterns   |   Patterns Index   |   Profit   |   Quilting
    Selvage   |   Stanford School of Law Case Outline   |   Tabberone Disclaimer   |   Trademark Extortion   |   Urban Myths   |   What To Do If You Are Veroed

    Federal Court Cases
    Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations

    Federal Statutes
    Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22

    Federal Lawsuits
    Filing A Federal Lawsuit
    Setting Up | Standing. | Joinder of Parties. | The Complaint | Their Answer | Default Judgment
    F.R.C.P. 12(b) Motion | F.R.C.P. 12(f) Motion | Your Reply | Summary Judgment Motion | Affidavits | Time Extension

    Defending Against A Federal Lawsuit
    The Complaint | Your Answer | Denials | F.R.C.P. 12(b) Motion | F.R.C.P. 12(f) Motion | Affidavits | Time Extension

    VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program)
    VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter
    Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed

    Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2012

     

     

     

     

    joomla visitor