SERBIN, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
KEY WEST HAND PRINT FABRICS, INC., APPELLEE; KEY WEST HAND PRINT FABRICS, INC., APPELLANT, V. SERBIN, INC., APPELLEE
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.
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.
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Copyright Infringement cases and more on FLexlaw
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
-
Cyril Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
Tenn. Fabricating Co. v. Moultrie Mfg. Co. & William E. Smith, 421 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Sherry Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Towel King OF Fla., Inc., 822 F.2d 1031 (11th Cir. 1987)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- D/S OVE Skou v. Hebert, 365 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1966)