UNEEDA DOLL CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
P & M DOLL CO., INC., SALVATORE PAGANELLO AND JOSEPH PAGANELLO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the alleged copying was limited to the abstract idea and did not extend to the tangible expression of the idea, thus not infringing copyright.
Plaintiff sued for copyright infringement, claiming the defendant's doll and display box infringed on their copyrighted doll and display box. The tria…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Idea-Expression Dichotomy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff appeals from an order in an action for copyright infringement denying a preliminary injunction.
Appellant has copyrights on a doll with one arm around a red and white striped pole and on a display box for the doll. It claims that appellee is infringing appellant’s copyrights by making and selling a doll in a display box with its arm around a red and white striped pole.
It is well settled that there can be no copyright on an “idea” itself but only on the tangible “expression” of the idea. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879).
As Judge Learned Hand said in Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F. 2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960):
“Obviously, no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the ‘idea,’ and has borrowed its ‘expression.’ Decisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc.”
In the present case the learned district judge held “that any copying here was limited to the abstract idea of a doll on a pole in a display box and did not extend to Uneeda’s tangible expression of that idea” (Uneeda Doll Co. v. P & M Doll Co., 241 F.Supp. 675, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)).
We have examined the products involved and find no reason to disturb this conclusion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1980)
-
Ideal TOY Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd. (Inc.) & David Faber, 360 F.2d 1021 (2d Cir. 1966)
-
GAY Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corp., 703 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1983)
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1879)
- Peter PAN Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960)
- Gay v. Parpart, 101 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1879)