Tabberone's Court Cases page.

Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Court Cases on Copyrights and Trademarks

There's a lot of information on the internet but it can take hours to locate what you want. Sometines, a really good page disappears when you go back to it. These are court cases we've found that we think have relevant information. In some cases all we have are notes about the cases. When possible we have the entire decision. Understanding the Federal Court System isn't all that easy.

When someone posts information on the internet, they want it readily available to others. We help that along by reproducing the information and citing the source whenever possible. Information and education is the highway to freedom. With the individual cases we are also posting a synopsis called "Issues" to give you a "quickie" look at the case to see if you are interested. these cases were not selected becasue they presented earth-shaking decisions but more because the reasoning of the different courts presented arguments that you might be able to use in the future. Courts are persuaded more by logical arguments that support the facts of the case at hand than by emotional pleas.

Court cases often cite past cases and other legal references. To understand them better, CLICK HERE.

1st Circuit

Equine Technology v Equitechnology, 1995, 1st District Court of Appeals. Equine sued Equitechnology for trademark infringement and won. Equitechnology was not too bright in this case. It was a loser from the beginning. Good example of what makes up confusingly similar marks. ISSUES
Precious Moments v La Infantil, 971 F. Supp. 66 (D.P.R. 1997). Precious Moments sues to stop La Infantil from making and selling bedding from copyrighted, licensed fabric. Court ruled bedding items manufactured with lawfully acquired, authentic fabric with copyrighted design were not infringing derivative works, Court did require La Infantil to attach a notice with a disclaimer. Precious Moments lost because of the First Sale Doctrine. ISSUES
Clorox v Proctor & Gamble, 1999, 1st Circuit Court Of Appeals. Clorox claims Proctor & Gamble's advertising is false. Court of Appeals reversed lower court in favor of Clorox. Interesting for discussion by Court of trademark issues. ISSUES
Shelby Ford v Superperformance, 2002, 1st Circuit, District Mass. Deals with disposing of some motions where Ford was claiming trademark infringement on the use of "Cobra". Looks like Superperformance came out the winner. Court was not happy with either side. ISSUES

2nd Circuit

Batlin Vs Snyder, 1976, 2nd Cir, Court of Appeals. Widely quoted decision concerning what it takes for a work to qualify for a copyright. ISSUES
American Footwear Corp. v. General Footwear Co. Ltd.,, 609 F.2d 655, C.A.N.Y., 1979. General Footwear and co-defendant Universal Studios claimed the trademark rights to the word "Bionic" based upon the TV show the Bionic Woman and the Six Million Dollar Man. The court rejected their arguments. ISSUES
Home Box Office v Showtime, 1987, 832 F.2d 1311 (2d. Cir. 1987). Showtime was using HBO's name in advertising that the court found was trademark ingringement. Very good discussion of disclaimers ISSUES
Charles Of The Ritz Group Ltd v Quality King Distributors, Inc, 1987, 832 F.2d 1317 (2nd Cir, 1987). Charles of the Ritz makes the perfume "Opium". Quality King was marketing a perfume called "Omni". Omni smelled like Opium, the box looked like Opium, and Opium was referenced on the box. This case is often mis-qouted by corporate lawyers who claim disclaimers are ineffective. Also check out Charles of the Ritz Analysis that goes into detail about how corporate & trial lawyers lie about disclaimers. ISSUES
Soltex Polymer Corporation v. Fortex Industries, Inc., 832 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir. 1987). Soltex was using a name very close to Fortex. Good discussion of disclaimers ISSUES
Dial-A-Mattress v Page, 1989, 2nd Cir, Court of Appeals. Page began using a telephone number similar to the one used by Dial-A-Mattress. Court upheld ruling that a telephone number can be considered a trademark anf therefore protectible under trademark laws. Page lost. ISSUES
Car-Freshner v S.C. Johnson, 1995, 2nd Cir, Court of Appeals. Car Freshener sues Johnson over the use of a pine tree image as a air freshener. Court upheld "Fair Use" by Johnson. ISSUES
Woods Vs Bourne, 858 F.Supp. 399 (S.D.N.Y.1994), 2nd Cir, Court of Appeals. Harry Woods wrote a song, "When the Red, Red, Robin Comes Bob, Bob, Bobbin' Along", and sold the copyright to Irving Berlin. Bourne acquired the rights some years later. Great discussion of what constitutes a derivative. ISSUES
Matthew Bender & Co v West Publishing, , 158 F.3d 693 (2nd Cir. 1998). Bender was using "star pagination" to show page numbers just like West Publishing in judicial opinions. Court held Bender was not infringing. ISSUES
Krause vs Titleserv, 2004, 2nd Cir, Court of Appeals. Titleserv modified computer programs written by Krause. Krause claimed software was "licensed" by him and not owned by Titleserv. Court rejected the claim saying Titleserv owned the software. ISSUES

3rd Circuit

Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech.,, 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991), 3rd Cir Court Appeals. Wyse Tech claims its software is licensed, not sold, and that the "user agreement" prohibits Step-Saver from seeking damages. Court rules software is "sold" and that "user agreements" are improperly restrictive. ISSUES

4th Circuit

AOL v AT&T, 243.F3d.812 (4th Cir, 1999), 4th Cir Court, Virginia. AOL sues AT&T over the use of "You've Got Mail" and "Buddy List", both trademarked by AOL. Court rules, NO, they are generic and therefor not availabale for trademark protection. ISSUES

5th Circuit

Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, 698 F2d 786 (5th Cir, 1988). Zatarains sued to stop Oak Grove from using "FISH FRY" claiming their trademark "FISH FRI" had "secondary meaning". Court disagreed and also stated "Fair Use Doctrine" prevailed. Zatarains prevailed on some other issues. ISSUES
Pizza Hut v Papa Johns, 2000, 5th Cir, Court of Appeals. Pizza Hut sued Papa Johns claiming false advertising under the Lanham Act for the use of "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza". Pizza Hut won a jury trial but lost on appeal when the Appeals Court ruled that as a matter of law, "puffery" was not actionable. ISSUES
Westchester Media Co., L.P. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc, 214 F.3d 658 (5th Cir. 2000) (No. 99-20754), 5th Cir, Court of Appeals. Ralph Lauren didn't like a sports magazine using "POLO" for its title. Court concluded disclaimers would be an effective remedy to infringement among others. ISSUES

6th Circuit

Bath And Body v Luzier,1996, 6th Cir, Court of Appeals. Bath and Body was ruled to be a generic term and not eligible fot trademark protection. Bath & Body was also claiming secondary meaning which was denied. ISSUES
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum v. Gentile Productions, 134 F.3d 749 (Sixth Cir, 1998). Photographer took a picture of the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame and put it on a poster with the name. The name and the building were trademarked. Hall of Fame sued. They had their own posters and didn't want competition. Court denied the Hall of Fame claims for trademark infringement claiming "Fair Use" in the use of the name and a picture of the building. ISSUES
ETW v Jirej Publishing 2003, 6th Cir, Court of Appeals. Tiger Woods sued to stop an artist from using his likeness in a painting and then selling it. ETW claimed protection under the Lanham Act for any and all images of Tiger Woods, which the Court deemed "an untenable claim". The painting was considered protected under the First Amendment. Tiger lost. ISSUES

7th Circuit

ProCD v. Matthew Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir, 1996). Good discussion of shrinkwrap license and contracts. Matthew Zeidenberg bought a consumer package of SelectPhone (trademark) in 1994 from a retail outlet in Madison, Wisconsin, but decided to ignore the license. ProCD sued, citing the license agreemnt. The District Court rejected the license argument and ruled for Zeidenberg. Seventh Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. must show originality and be copyrightable. ISSUES
LEE v A.R.T. Company, 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997). A.R.T. Co buys cards and mounts them on tile. Lee sues claiming the tiles are copyright infringement because they are derivatives. Court rejects Mirage and Lee's claims stating derivatives must show originality and be copyrightable. ISSUES
Ty v. Publications International, 2002, 7th Cir, Court of Appeals. Publications International publishes several collectors guides for Beanie Babies. Ty claims they cannot without a license. Real good discussion of fair use. Court of appeals determined fair use. ISSUES
Ty v. Ruth Perryman, 2002, 7th Cir, Court of Appeals. Ty doesn't like Perryman selling Beanie Babies using the name "Beanies". Court of Appeals vacated lower court injunstion and remanded mostly in favor of Perryman. Good trademark dilution case. ISSUES

8th Circuit

Action Tapes vs Kelly Mattson (2006 8th Cir) District Judge dismissed lawsuit by Action Tapes where Action claimed Mattson was infringing on copyright. Judge found embroidery CDs were not computer programs but only sets of computer instructions. Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment but on the grounds that Action Tapes had not shown registration of alleged computer program and therefore could not file a lawsuit alleging infringemnt. ISSUES

9th Circuit

United States vs Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir 1977). Criminal copyright case involving movies films. Sale versus license addressed.
Job's Daughters, Inc. v. Lindeberg and Co, 1980, 9th Cir, Court of Appeals. Lindberg was making and selling jewelry exactly the same as Job's Daughters. Court ruled it was not trademark infringement because the jewelry was not being used as a trademark.
Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co, 1988, 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1018 (1989). A very flawed decision from the most overturned circuit. A.R.T. was cuting cards from a book and mounting them on tiles. Mirage sued claiming the tiles are copyright infringement because they are derivatives. 9th Court agreed but no other circuit does. Mirage has been disclaimed by most other circuits and legal scholars. ISSUES
New Kids v News America, 1992, 9th Cir, Court of Appeals. New Kids On The Block sued two newspapers because the papers used their names in unauthorized promotions. Landmark decision involving The Fair Use Doctrine. Court ruled against New Kids. ISSUES
Fonovisa Inc. v. Cherry Auction, 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996). The Ninth Circuit held that flea market owners may be liable for vicarious and contributory infringement. ISSUES
CD Solutions v CDS Networks, 1998, 9th Circuit District of Oregon. CDS claims exclusive rights to the use of "CDs". Court ruled in favor of CD Solutions saying it was generic, effectively voiding the trademark held by CDS. ISSUES
Tiffany Design v Reno-Tahoe Specialty, 1999, 9th Cir District of Nevada. Two companies agrue over who owns the rights to a photograph of the Las vegas Strip, taken 1998. In a confusing ruling, the Court ruled that Reno-Taho had violated Tiffany's "exclusive right to reproduce copyrighted works under 17 U.S.C. � 106(1)" but conversly ruled that Reno-Taho had NOT violated Tiffany's. "exclusive rights to create derivative works and to distribute its copyrighted work under 17 U.S.C. � 106(2) -(3)." HUH? Well, that's the 9th Circuit for you. Remember, Fantasyland is there. ISSUES
Softman Products v Adobe Systems, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2001). Court states, under the first sale doctrine, resale by the first purchaser of the original article under the producer's trademark is generally neither trademark infringement nor unfair competition." It also stated, the "sale of genuine trademarked product by seller unauthorized to sell not a violation of Lanham Act". ISSUES
Mattel vs MCA Records, 2002, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002). Mattel didn't like the song "Barbie Girl" and sued. Court found no trademark infringement. ISSUES
Timothy Vernor v. Autodesk (2008 9th Cir W. Wash) Order by District Judge stating that Autodesk's software was SOLD NOT LICENSED and that the Plaintiff, Timothy Vernor was entitled to use the First Sale Doctrine as a defense to alleged copyright infringement.
UMG Recordings vs Troy Augusto (2008 9th Cir Cent CA) Order by District Judge dismissing lawsuit by UMG which alleged Augusto was illegally selling promotional CDs. Judge found unsolicited CDs sent to music industry recipients were gifts and the attached license was invalid. Accordingly, under the first sale doctrine, Augusto was free to re-sell these CDs regardless of restrictions printed upon them. ISSUES

10th Circuit

Jordache Vs Hogg Wyld, 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987). Jordache was claiming trademark infringement over the use of "Lardashe" on jeans. Court ruled use of trademark was fair use as a parody under trademark law.
Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Assn, 1996, 10th Cir, Court of Appeals. Court ruled using the likeness of players on parody baseball cards was not infringing. A real good discussion of the requirements for seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court. Case No. 95-5006. ISSUES
Country Kids v. Sheen, 1996, 10th Cir Court of Appeals. Maker of dolls sued a former employee claiming she copyed her doll designs. Court of Appeals reversed preliminary injunction, saying that most aspects of the dolls were not copyrightable. ISSUES
Creative Gifts v. UFO, 2000, 10th Cir, Court of Appeals. Toy maker Creative Gifts sued claiming trademark infringement. UFO countered claiming the name "Levitron" was generic. Court found for Plaintiff. ISSUES
Sally Beauty Company v. Beautyco, 2001, 10th Cir, Court of Appeals. Beautyco's use of "generic version of" on its GENERIX products caused Sally Beauty to sue. Sally Beauty lost. ISSUES
Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts Inc.,, 10th Cir., No. 06-1458, 1/28/08. Sevenarts, owner to the rights of Erte a designer and artist, objected to fabric depicting Betty Boop wearing an Erte gown and ordered terminated the eBay auctions. When sued, Defendants filed to dismiss stating a lack of jurisdiction. Appeals Court found for Plaintiffs. ISSUES

11th Circuit

Leigh v Warner Brothers, 2000, 11th Cir, Court of Appeals. Leigh took a picture of a statue that was used on a book cover. Warner Brothers used a similar picture in a movie. Leigh sued claiming copyright infringement. The Court upheld the doctrine that "objects in the public domain or as they occur in nature is not protected by copyright" and ruled in favor of Warner Brothers. ISSUES

Supreme Court

Bobbs-Merril vs Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). Limited the rights of copyright holders to those allowed by statute only. ISSUES
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228 (1952), awarding statutory damages in copyright infringement even when they are larger than actual damage. ISSUES
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), a landmark jurisdiction case.
CAMPBELL v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, 1994. Acuff Rose Music didn't like the paropdy of "Pretty Woman" by 2LiveCrew and sued. Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2LiveCrew saying "Fair Use".
CAMPBELL v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, 1994. Syllabus from the court (details of the facts).
Fogerty v. Fantasy, 1994. Discusses the grounds for awarding attorney fees in copyright cases.
Quality King v Lanza, 98 F.3d 1109 (1998), a landmark case citing the First Sale Doctrine.
Quality King v Lanza Syllabus, 98 F.3d 1109 (1998), Syllabus.
MOSELEY et al., dba VICTOR'S LITTLE SECRET v. V SECRET CATALOGUE, 2003. Victoria's Secret objected to Victor's Little Secret but the Supreme Court said, "Sorry, Charlie".
MOSELEY et al., dba VICTOR'S LITTLE SECRET v. V SECRET CATALOGUE, 2003. Syllabus from the court (details of the facts).
Darstar Corp vs Twentieth Century Fox, 2003. .Twentieth Century Fox produced a TV series based upon General Eiseenhower's book, "Crusade In Europe" and failed to renew the copyright before it lapsed. Twentieth Century Fox reacquired the rights to the book. Darstar bought old copies of the TV series and released them as its own. Fox claimed trademark infringement. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decisions saying the TV show was public domain and Fox could not claim infringement.
Darstar Corp vs Twentieth Century Fox, 2003. Syllabus from the court (details of the facts).

More cases as they are found.