From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 2, 1962
309 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1962)

Opinion

No. 48, Docket 27547.

Argued October 18, 1962.

Decided November 2, 1962.

Eric Y. Munson, New York City, for appellants.

Charles Sonnenreich, New York City, for appellee.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.


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.


Summaries of

Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 2, 1962
309 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1962)
Case details for

Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co.

Case Details

Full title:DAN KASOFF, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOVELTY JEWELRY CO., Inc., Melba…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Nov 2, 1962

Citations

309 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1962)

Citing Cases

Uneeda Doll Co. v. Goldfarb Novelty Co.

appears on the sole of the doll's right foot. We express no view on the questions of whether these…

Uneeda Doll Co. v. P M Doll Co.

Plaintiff argues that it has copyrighted "a doll on a pole in a display box", and the defendants' production…