Klitzner Industries, Inc. v. H. K. James & Co.

535 F. Supp. 1249 (E.D. Pa. 1982) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · April 1, 1982 · No. Civ. A. No. 82-1243

Summary

The court grants a preliminary injunction against the defendant's alleged infringement of the plaintiff's copyrighted advertisements for an eagle commemorative belt buckle. It finds a reasonable probability of success based on access, substantial similarity, and apparent copying of the advertisements, but rejects preliminary relief concerning the buckle itself under copyright, Lanham Act, state unfair competition, consumer protection, and precious-metals-content claims.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff failed to show a reasonable probability of success on its claim that defendant infringed the copyright in plaintiff's belt buckle because the works shared only an unprotectable scenic idea and the defendant's expression was not substantially similar.
  2. Plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on its claim that defendant infringed plaintiff's copyrighted advertisements.
  3. Plaintiff failed to show a reasonable probability of success on its Lanham Act claims concerning defendant's belt buckle.
  4. Plaintiff did not show a reasonable probability of success on its common-law unfair-competition and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claims concerning the buckle.
  5. Plaintiff failed to show a reasonable probability of success on its claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 294-298.
  6. Plaintiff established irreparable harm and satisfied the preliminary-injunction factors with respect to defendant's infringement of plaintiff's advertisements.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on its copyright-infringement claim concerning the belt buckle.
  2. Whether plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on its copyright-infringement claim concerning its advertisements.
  3. Whether plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on its Lanham Act claims concerning the defendant's belt buckle.
  4. Whether plaintiff's Pennsylvania unfair-competition and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claims concerning the belt buckle were preempted or otherwise viable.
  5. Whether plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 294-298 concerning the defendant's belt buckle.
  6. Whether plaintiff established irreparable harm and satisfied the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (21)

  • Constructor's Association of Western Pennsylvania v. Kreps, 573 F.2d 811, 815 (3d Cir. 1978)(followed)
  • Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F.2d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 1975)(followed)
  • Penn Galvanizing Company v. Lukens Steel Co., 468 F.2d 1021, 1023 (3d Cir. 1972)(followed)
  • North Penn Oil and Tire Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 358 F. Supp. 908, 919 (E.D. Pa. 1973)(followed)
  • Ideal Toy Corporation v. Fab-Lu Ltd., 360 F.2d 1021 (2d Cir. 1966)(followed)
  • Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946)(followed)
  • Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904, 907 (3d Cir. 1975)(followed)
  • Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 423 U.S. 863, 96 S. Ct. 122, 46 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1975)(followed)
  • Custom Decor, Inc. v. Nautical Crafts, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 154, 156-157 (E.D. Pa. 1980)(followed)
  • Franklin Mint Corp. v. National Wildlife Art Exchange, Inc., 575 F.2d 62, 64-65 (3d Cir. 1978)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…