SERBIN, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
KEY WEST HAND PRINT FABRICS, INC., APPELLEE; KEY WEST HAND PRINT FABRICS, INC., APPELLANT, V. SERBIN, INC., APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1967-08-14
No. 24067
381 F.2d 735 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1967) Caution
Cited by 17 cases

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the district court's judgment of copyright infringement and the dismissal of a related claim, finding no need for elaboration beyond the published opinion below.


Facts & Procedural History

Serbin, Inc. appealed a judgment finding infringement of two copyrights, while Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc. cross-appealed the dismissal of a thi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Serbin, Inc. (Serbin), defendant in the District Court, appeals from a final judgment in favor of Key West Hand Print Fabrics, Inc. (Key West) finding infringement of two copyrights, No. K67524 (“Zuzek Rose Butter”) and No. K66990 (“Dragon”). On appeal Serbin has raised points directed only to matters affecting liability. No question is raised as to the District Court’s award of statutory damages1 of $5,000 on each of the two counts, and of attorneys’ fees2 of $10,000.

Key West cross-appeals from the dismissal by the District Court, without prejudice, of a claim involving a third copyright K67222 (“Bougainvilla”) for lack of an indispensable party plaintiff, one Charles Cervantes, in whose name the copyright was jointly registered. Key West does not question here the correctness of the District Court’s dismissal, for failure of proof, of its claim involving unfair competition.3

The District Court’s opinion is reported in 269 F.Supp. 605. For the reasons carefully reviewed and enunciated there, requiring no elaboration by us, we affirm both as to the original appeal and the cross-appeal. As to the District Court’s disposition of other matters (supra) not raised on either appeal or cross-appeal here, we of course express no views.

Key West applies for the allowance under the statute of additional attorneys’ fees as a part of the costs for this appeal. The statute contemplates such fees. We deem it proper that such allowance be considered by the District Court rather than this court, and direct that that court consider an application therefor by Key West upon the going down of our mandate. D/S Ove Skou v. Hebert, 365 F. 2d 341 (5 Cir. 1966) at 353.

Affirmed, with directions.

. Title 17, U.S.C. Sec. 101(b).

. Title 17, U.S.C. See. 116.

. Title 28, U.S.C. Sec. 1338(b).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw