green
Positive treatment
11.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Secure Services Technology, Inc. v. Time & Space Processing, Inc.
The court, canvassing existing case law, noted that: courts have said that in the copyright context the standard for originality of a compilation or derivative work is “minimal” and of a “low threshold,” and is “modest at best.” The requirement is satisfied if the new material or expression has what the Court in Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir.1962) said “was a faint trace of ‘originality’ ” and if it provides a “distinguishable variation.” Id. at 438 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lifshitz v. Walter Drake & Sons, Inc.
Though Lifshitz is able to cite several cases in which courts have applied this rule to bar willful infringers from asserting errors in copyright notice as a defense, see, e.g., Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir.1962); Uneeda Doll Co. v. Goldfarb Novelty Co., 373 F.2d 851, 854 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 801 , 88 S.Ct. 9 , 19 L.Ed.2d 56 (1967), these cases applied this rule to infringement situations arising under the Copyrights Act of 1909, ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075 (codified and reenacted as positive law in 1947, Pub.L. 80-281 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Igor Lifshitz v. Walter Drake & Sons, Inc., and Etna Products Co., Inc., Igor Lifshitz, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Etna Products Co., Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
Though Lifshitz is able to cite several cases in which courts have applied this rule to bar willful infringers from asserting errors in copyright notice as a defense, see, e.g., Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir.1962); Uneeda Doll Co. v. Goldfarb Novelty Co., 373 F.2d 851, 854 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 801 , 88 S.Ct. 9 , 19 L.Ed.2d 56 (1967), these cases applied this rule to infringement situations arising under the Copyrights Act of 1909, ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075 (codified and reenacted as positive law in 1947, Pub.L. 80-281 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
M. Kramer Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Hugh Andrews, Tim Caldwell, Drew's Distributing, Inc., Drew's Distributing Co., and Lynch Enterprises, Inc.
The requirement is satisfied if the new material or expression has what the Court in Dan Kasoff Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir.1962) said was a “faint trace of ‘originality’ ” and if it provides a “distinguishable variation,” Merritt Forbes & Co. v. Newman Securities, 604 F.Supp. 943, 951 (S.D.N.Y.1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
EF Johnson Co. v. Uniden Corp. of America
Dan Kasoff Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir.1962) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Jeffrey Snyder D/B/A J. S. N. Y. And Etna Products Co., Inc.
(2×)
Dorfman Co., 433 F.2d 409, 411 (2 Cir. 1970) and Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., Inc., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2 Cir. 1962), where this Court required only a “faint trace of originality” to support a copyright.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Angelo R. Puddu and Puddu & Martinelli, Inc. v. Buonamici Statuary, Inc.
In Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Grossbardt, supra, 436 F.2d at 319 , we indicated skepticism with respect to the broad dictum in the per curiam opinion in Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2 *405 Cir. 1962), that defendants who are “wholly aware of the existence of copyright” can never “assert insufficiency of copyright notice.” That and similar statements in district court opinions fail to take adequate account of the plain language of § 10 and also of Thompson v. Hubbard, 131 U.S. 123 , 9 S.Ct. 710 , 33 L.Ed. 76 (1889).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Monogram Models, Inc. v. Industro Motive Corporation and Henry G. Michael
From these and other cases it can be observed that “practically anything novel can be copyrighted”, Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Company, 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2nd Cir. 1962) so long as it is “original”.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gardenia Flowers, Inc. v. Joseph Markovits, Inc.
Indeed, it has been held that: “ * * * practically anything novel can be copyrighted. * * * ‘No matter how poor artistically the “author’s” addition, it is enough if it be his own’. * * * ” Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2nd Cir. 1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas Wilson & Company, Inc. v. Irving J. Dorfman Company, Inc.
See Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir. 1962) 4 Defendant also offers other reasons why plaintiff should be barred from enforcing its copyrights, principally plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with the notice provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 10 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corporation
Dorfman Co., 433 F.2d 409, 411 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 977 , 91 S.Ct. 1200 , 28 L.Ed.2d 326 (1971) (“modest at best”); Millworth Converting Corp. v. Slifka, 276 F.2d 443, 445 (2d Cir. 1960) (“modest”); see also Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745, 746 (2d Cir. 1962) (“faint trace” of originality required).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Uneeda Doll Co., Inc. v. Goldfarb Novelty Co., Inc. And Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc.
Compare, Dan Kasoff Inc. v. Novelty Jewelry Co., 309 F.2d 745 (2d Cir, 1962) with Dan Kasoff, Inc. v. Gresco Jewelry Co., 308 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1962), affirming 204 F.Supp. 694 (S.D.N.Y.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DAN KASOFF, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NOVELTY JEWELRY CO., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel, Defendants-Appellants
v.
NOVELTY JEWELRY CO., Inc., Melba Jewels, Inc., and Henry Frankel, Defendants-Appellants
48, Docket 27547.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 2, 1962.
Eric Y. Munson, New York City, for appellants., Charles Sonnenreich, New York City, for appellee.
Waterman, Hays, Marshall.
Cited by 20 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
Although it might be thought that the invocation of the power of government to protect designs against infringement implied some merit other than a faint trace of “originality”, it is now settled beyond question that practically anything novel can be copyrighted. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954); Rushton v. Vitale, 218 F.2d 434 (2d Cir.1955). “No matter how poor artistically the ‘author’s’ addition, it is enough if it be his own”. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99, 103 (2d Cir.1951).
There can be no doubt that the copyright on plaintiff's garish trinket was valid and that defendants infringed by copying plaintiff’s product.
Even if, as defendants urge, the copyright notice might not be sufficient for some purposes, because it used the word “Florenza”, plaintiff’s trademark, rather than plaintiff’s name, the defendants, as willful infringers wholly aware of the existence of the copyright, are in no position to assert the insufficiency of the notice. See National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir.1951).
Affirmed.