Case: Crown Awards, Inc. v. Discount Trophy & Co., Inc, 2009 WL 1054109 (2nd Cir. N.Y.)
Facts: The designer of spinning trophies brought copyright infringement action against competitor. Here, Crown owned a valid copyright in its diamond-shaped spinning trophy and it asserted that Discount had access to Crown's design through its receipt of Crown's 2006 catalog and its monitoring of Crown's products. Discount had contacted Xiamen Xihua Arts and Crafts to design trophies which were strikingly similar to the designs used by Crown. As a result, Crown sued Discount for infringement. Following bench trial, the District Court permanently enjoined defendant from manufacturing infringing product and awarded plaintiff profits from sales of infringing product. Plaintiff moved for attorney fees and costs.
Holding: The court ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgments of the district court, entered on March 20 and July 10, 2008, are affirmed.
Reasoning: The court reviewed the district court's similarity determination de novo because credibility is not at stake and all that is required is a visual comparison of the products and as a result it is paramount to perform as well as the district court. Here, the district court found that Crown owned a valid copyright in its diamond-shaped spinning trophy and that Discount had access to Crown's design through its receipt of Crown's 2006 catalog and its monitoring of Crown's products. The district court found, however, that Crown had failed to demonstrate that Xiamen Xihua Arts and Crafts (“Xiamenâ€), the manufacturer of the allegedly infringing trophy, also had access to Crown's design because there was no record evidence that Discount asked Xiamen to manufacture a trophy that looked like Crown's copyrighted trophy, or that Xiamen ever received a Crown catalog. While acknowledging that Crown's design could be viewed on the Internet after January of 2006, the district court noted that there is no evidence in the record about the Internet habits of Xiamen's principal. The district court nevertheless inferred access on the part of Xiamen from the striking similarity between the diamond-shaped spinning trophies sold by Crown and Discount. The court further found that the two products were “substantially†similar and shared the same total concept and feel. Rejecting Discount's proffered affirmative defense that Xiamen independently created the design for the infringing diamond-shaped spinning trophy, the court found that the credibility of Mr. Lin, Xiamen's principal, was nonexistent. The court further found that the timing of the order from Discount is very suggestive of copying in so far as the first Discount trophies were ordered from Lin in the mid summer of 2006, which is perfect timing if you worked forward from the publication of the Crown catalogs in 2006 and assumed that Mr. Lin got to work on fabricating a knockoff shortly thereafter. Accordingly, it ruled in favor of Crown on its claim of infringement. The court found that the nature of Xiamen's business, the timing of Discount's orders from Xiamen, and Mr. Lin's failure to offer any credible account of independent creation of the allegedly infringing design made it absolutely impossible to believe that Xiamen created the infringing design without coordinating with Discount in advance. These facts, together with the district court's finding that Discount had direct access to Crown's trophy design through its receipt of the Crown catalog and its monitoring of Crown's products, compel a conclusion of a reasonable possibility that through For several substantially reasons stated by the district court in its detailed analysis of the issue, the supreme court agrees that Discount unlawfully appropriated Crown's protected expression. On de novo examination of both Crown's copyrighted trophy and Discount's allegedly infringing copy, the court concludes that Discount's product, while not identical to Crown's, mimics Crown's protectable aesthetic decisions in the arrangement of the trophy's elements to an extent that their total concept and feel are the same.
Facts: The designer of spinning trophies brought copyright infringement action against competitor. Here, Crown owned a valid copyright in its diamond-shaped spinning trophy and it asserted that Discount had access to Crown's design through its receipt of Crown's 2006 catalog and its monitoring of Crown's products. Discount had contacted Xiamen Xihua Arts and Crafts to design trophies which were strikingly similar to the designs used by Crown. As a result, Crown sued Discount for infringement. Following bench trial, the District Court permanently enjoined defendant from manufacturing infringing product and awarded plaintiff profits from sales of infringing product. Plaintiff moved for attorney fees and costs.
Holding: The court ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgments of the district court, entered on March 20 and July 10, 2008, are affirmed.
Reasoning: The court reviewed the district court's similarity determination de novo because credibility is not at stake and all that is required is a visual comparison of the products and as a result it is paramount to perform as well as the district court. Here, the district court found that Crown owned a valid copyright in its diamond-shaped spinning trophy and that Discount had access to Crown's design through its receipt of Crown's 2006 catalog and its monitoring of Crown's products. The district court found, however, that Crown had failed to demonstrate that Xiamen Xihua Arts and Crafts (“Xiamenâ€), the manufacturer of the allegedly infringing trophy, also had access to Crown's design because there was no record evidence that Discount asked Xiamen to manufacture a trophy that looked like Crown's copyrighted trophy, or that Xiamen ever received a Crown catalog. While acknowledging that Crown's design could be viewed on the Internet after January of 2006, the district court noted that there is no evidence in the record about the Internet habits of Xiamen's principal. The district court nevertheless inferred access on the part of Xiamen from the striking similarity between the diamond-shaped spinning trophies sold by Crown and Discount. The court further found that the two products were “substantially†similar and shared the same total concept and feel. Rejecting Discount's proffered affirmative defense that Xiamen independently created the design for the infringing diamond-shaped spinning trophy, the court found that the credibility of Mr. Lin, Xiamen's principal, was nonexistent. The court further found that the timing of the order from Discount is very suggestive of copying in so far as the first Discount trophies were ordered from Lin in the mid summer of 2006, which is perfect timing if you worked forward from the publication of the Crown catalogs in 2006 and assumed that Mr. Lin got to work on fabricating a knockoff shortly thereafter. Accordingly, it ruled in favor of Crown on its claim of infringement. The court found that the nature of Xiamen's business, the timing of Discount's orders from Xiamen, and Mr. Lin's failure to offer any credible account of independent creation of the allegedly infringing design made it absolutely impossible to believe that Xiamen created the infringing design without coordinating with Discount in advance. These facts, together with the district court's finding that Discount had direct access to Crown's trophy design through its receipt of the Crown catalog and its monitoring of Crown's products, compel a conclusion of a reasonable possibility that through For several substantially reasons stated by the district court in its detailed analysis of the issue, the supreme court agrees that Discount unlawfully appropriated Crown's protected expression. On de novo examination of both Crown's copyrighted trophy and Discount's allegedly infringing copy, the court concludes that Discount's product, while not identical to Crown's, mimics Crown's protectable aesthetic decisions in the arrangement of the trophy's elements to an extent that their total concept and feel are the same.