Crown Awards, Inc. V. Discount Trophy & Co., Inc.

detonator Awards, Inc. v. usher out Trophy & Co. , Inc. U. S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 2009 U. S. App. Lexis 8540 (2009) Material Facts of the Case Crown Awards is a retailer of awards and trophies change through mail order catalogs and via the Internet. Crown designed and sold a diamond-shaped spinning trophy for which it owned two copyright registrations. disregard Trophy is integrity of Crowns competitors, and it sold a trophy that was substantially similar to Crowns Spin Trophy.Crown requested that Discount discontinue the sale of the aver copy, and when Discount refused, Crown filed suit in the Southern District of New York. Legal and Ethical Issues of the Case In order to prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a complainant must(prenominal) demonstrate both ownership of a valid copyright and infringement. To establish infringement, the copyright owner must demonstrate that (1) the defendant has actually copied the plaintiffs practiseand(2) the copying is illegal because a substantial similarity exists between the defendants work and the protectable elements of plaintiffs. Actual copying may be proved considerly or indirectly. Indirect evidence of copyingincludes proof that the defendants had admission price to the procure work and similarities that are probative of copying between the works. Because direct proof of access is oftenimpossible to adduce, the law permits a plaintiff to carry his burden on this point through evidence that an alleged infringer had a reasonable happening of access to the original work.Notably, a woo may infer that the alleged infringer had a reasonable possibility of access if the author sent the copyrighted work to a third party intermediary who has aclose relationshipwith the infringer. Access through third parties connected to both a plaintiff and a defendant may be sufficient to prove a defendants access to a plaintiffs work. If a plaintiff cannot demonstrate a reasonable possibility of access, its infringement claim will fail absent proof of a striking similarity between the original and infringing works. We have held that where the works in header are so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation, copying may be proved without a showing of access. In some cases, the similarities between the plaintiffs and defendants work are so extensive and striking as, without more, both to justify an inference of copying and to prove improper appropriation.If a plaintiff demonstrates actual copying through proof of a reasonable possibility of access and similarities probative of copying, however, it can prevail on its infringement claim by demonstrating that defendants work is substantially similar to that which is original in the plaintiffs expression. With inexact copies, this assessment proceeds by a comparison of the total concept and feel of the contested works as instructed by common sense. The court must analyze the two works closely to figure out in what respects, if any, they are similar, and thus determine whether these similarities are due to protected aesthetic expressions original to the allegedly infringed work, or whether the similarity is to something in the original that is free for the taking. Rules and Rationale Utilized by the Court to Resolve the Dispute The district court found that Crown owned a valid copyright in its diamond-shaped spinning trophy and that Discount had access to Crowns design through its receipt of Crowns 2006 catalog and its monitoring of Crowns products.The district court found, however, that Crown had failed to demonstrate that Xiamen Xihua Arts and Craft, the manufacturer of the allegedly infringing trophy, also had access to Crowns design because there was no record evidence (1) that Discount asked Xiamen to manufacture a trophy that looked like Crowns copyrighted trophy, or (2) that Xiamen ever received a Crown catalog.While acknowledging that Crowns design could be viewed on the Internet after January of 2006, the district court noted that there is no evidence in the record astir(predicate) the Internet habits of Xiamens 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. The court further found that the timing of the order from Discount is . . . suggestive of copying, insofar 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 Xiamen got to work on fabricating a knockoff shortly thereafter. The district court concluded I find independent creation to be not only flimsy but absolutely impossible to believe. Accordingly, it ruled in favor of Crown on its claim of infringe ment.Courts Conclusion The judgments of the district court were affirmed in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant Discount appeals from the judgments of the district court, entered after a two-day bench trial, awarding plaintiff Crown $22,845. 18 in damages and $165,528. 01 in lawyers fees and costs for Discounts infringement of Crowns copyrights in the design of the Spin Trophy. Ethical Impact Analysis The decision in the courts ruling emphasizes that copyright infringement is not only illegal, but considered unethical in our society.Copyrights exist for a reason, and particularly against with a registered copyright, take copying of a product for the purpose of making a profit is something that should definitely be challenged and awarded to the copyright owner. The theft of intellectual property, as illustrated in this case, is sometimes difficult to prove, but it seemed clear in this situation that Discount blatantly copied Crowns spinning trophy. Im glad to have seen that Crown was awarded not only in damages, but also for their legal fees.