From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Rheingold

United States District Court, S.D. Florida
May 18, 1979
Case No. 79-888-CIV-JLK (S.D. Fla. May. 18, 1979)

Opinion

Case No. 79-888-CIV-JLK.

May 18, 1979


[Opinion in Full Text]


*1 This matter having come before this Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, and Defendant having failed to answer or otherwise plead or respond to the Complaint, the Defendant having been found to be in default by Order dated March 21st, 1979, the Court having reviewed the pleadings and affidavits filed herein and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,

IT IS HEREBY THE FINDING OF THIS COURT THAT:

1. On or about September, 1978, various retail businesses in Miami provided Plaintiff with information in evidence indicating that Defendant, STEVE RHEINGOLD, had been selling wholesale quantities of unauthorized heat transfers featuring the likenesses of various PEANUTS characters, including "SNOOPY" in his various poses and that Defendant may have manufactured some or all of said transfers.

As late as January, 1979, Plaintiff received information indicating that Defendant was still selling unauthorized heat transfers featuring the PEANUTS characters.

2. Defendant has prevented Plaintiff from establishing the amount of Defendant's sales of unauthorized PEANUTS products. Plaintiff has been substantially damaged by the sales of unauthorized iron-on transfers such as those sold by Defendant, but Plaintiff does not attempt to establish those damages and relies instead on the statutory damages alternative.

3. The sale by the Defendant of the two different styles of iron-on transfers described above constitutes at least two separate infringements by Defendant, and as a result Plaintiff may be entitled to statutory damages for those sales of up to $20,000.00 or up to $100,000.00 if the sales were intentional, plus attorney's fees, expenses and costs at the Court's discretion.

4. Based upon the above, an award to Plaintiff of statutory damages in the amount of $8,000.00 per infringement plus Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, expenses and costs is appropriate.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED based on the above that a Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant be entered as follows:

1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of all counts of this action and over all the parties hereto.

2. The copyrights of Plaintiff described in the Complaint filed in this action are good, valid and enforceable in law, and Plaintiff is the sole proprietor of all right, title and interest in and to said copyrights.

3. Count I of the Complaint states a claim against Defendant for infringement of Plaintiff's rights protected under Section 43(a) of the Federal Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).

4. Counts II and III of the Complaint state claims for copyright infringement against Defendant under the Federal Copyright Act.

5. Count IV of the Complaint states a claim against Defendant for unfair competition against Defendant under the common law of Florida.

6. Count V of the Complaint states a claim against Defendant under Florida Statutes § 495.151, Injury to Business Reputation and Dilution of Trademark.

7. Plaintiff, as owner of a copyright, under the Federal Copyright Act, for an infringement thereof, is entitled to injunctive relief, an accounting for Defendant's profits, damages, or at its election, statutory damages and Plaintiff is entitled to its expenses including its attorneys' fees.

*2 8. Plaintiff is entitled to a statutory damage award in lieu of proving Defendant's profits and Plaintiffs damages, Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc. v. Serbin, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 605 (S.D. Fla. 1966), aff'd, 381 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1967), and statutory damages can be awarded in cases where a default has been entered. Robinson v. Bantam Books, Inc., 339 F. Supp. 150 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). The United States Supreme Court in F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228 (1952), recognized that in assessing a copyright statutory damages award, one of the considerations which a Court must weigh is deterrence of further wrongful conduct by Defendant and others.

9. Defendant and Defendant's respective successors, assigns, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and representatives, and all persons, firms and corporation in active concert with Defendant who receive notice hereof, be and are hereby enjoined and restrained:

(a) from directly or indirectly infringing the copyrights of Plaintiff or the trademark and proprietary rights of Plaintiff in any manner and by means of any activities, including but not limited to, manufacturing, distributing, selling, offering for sale or disposing of or causing to be manufactured, distributed, sold, offered for sale or disposed of:

(i) the t-shirts and/or transfers (hereinafter "Transfers") bearing the likeness of the "PEANUTS" characters "Snoopy" and "Snoopy" in his pose as "Joe Cool," copies of which are attached hereto, [Exhibits 1 and 2 not reproduced];

(ii) any other transfers or other products which copy or bear a substantial similarity to "Snoopy" in his pose as "Joe Cool" or any other PEANUTS characters or any representations confusingly similar to the likenesses of any of the PEANUTS characters; and

(iii) any advertising or promotional materials, labels, packaging or containers or other products picturing, reproducing or utilizing the likenesses of "Snoopy," and "Snoopy" in his pose as "Joe Cool" or of any other PEANUT characters of any representations confusingly similar to the likenesses of any of the PEANUTS characters;

(b) from engaging in any other conduct that tends to falsely represent that, or is likely to confuse, mislead and deceive purchasers, Defendant's customers or members of the public into believing that, said Transfers or other products of Defendant originate from Plaintiff or that said Transfers, Defendant's other products, or Defendant himself has been sponsored, approved or licensed by Plaintiff or are in some way affiliated or connected with Plaintiff or the PEANUTS comic strip in any way whatsoever.

10. Defendant shall pay unto Plaintiff, UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE, INC. damages as follows:

(a) The sum of $16,000.00 as damages for infringement of the copyrights and other proprietary rights of the Plaintiff;

(b) The sum of $1,230.00 for attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiff in enforcing its copyrights and other proprietary rights; and

(c) The sum of $22.92 as investigative and other costs, for a total of $17,252.92, for all of which Let Execution Issue Forthwith.

*3 11. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to construe, enforce, or implement this Judgment upon the application of any party.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at Miami, Dade County, Florida.


Summaries of

United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Rheingold

United States District Court, S.D. Florida
May 18, 1979
Case No. 79-888-CIV-JLK (S.D. Fla. May. 18, 1979)
Case details for

United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Rheingold

Case Details

Full title:United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Steve Rheingold, dba Miami Transfer Co

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Florida

Date published: May 18, 1979

Citations

Case No. 79-888-CIV-JLK (S.D. Fla. May. 18, 1979)