Ordinary Observer Test

44 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp.
  630 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·cited 77×
  The court held that Tomy's Disney figures lacked sufficient originality to be copyrightable, and that its miscellaneous toys, while validly copyrighted, were not substantially similar to the accused copies in their protected expression.
• Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Mfg. Co., Inc.
  494 F.2d 383· 6th Cir.· 1974-03-12 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the design patent for the sectional sofa was valid and infringed, and that the patent holder did not commit fraud or have unclean hands by withholding prior art.
• Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp.
  672 F.2d 607· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-02 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the defendant's K. C. Munchkin appropriated protectable expression from the plaintiff's PAC-MAN audiovisual work, specifically its characters, warranting reversal of the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Ideal TOY Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd. (Inc.) & David Faber
  360 F.2d 1021· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-23 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement, finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court.
• Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc.
  797 F.2d 1222· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the structure and organization of a computer program are protectible by copyright, not just the literal code, and that substantial similarity in structure can constitute infringement.
• Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp.
  558 F.2d 1090· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-12 ·cited 47×
  The court held that color is an element of a copyrighted textile design and that certain of the defendant's fabrics were substantially similar, while others were not.
• Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  444 F.2d 295· 9th Cir.· 1970-12-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the design patent for a bicycle seat was invalid due to obviousness when compared to prior art, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• In re Nalbandian
  661 F.2d 1214· C.C.P.A.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the board's decision regarding the obviousness of the design.
• Art Rogers v. Koons
  960 F.2d 301· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the sculptor's creation of a sculpture substantially similar to a copyrighted photograph, without authorization and without constituting a parody, constituted copyright infringement, and that fair use did not apply.
• Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. OF Am. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp.
  270 F.2d 635· 5th Cir.· 1959-09-18 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendants infringed the plaintiff's design patent and affirmed the district court's judgment regarding damages, unfair competition, and fees, finding no reversible error.
• Kustoff v. Chaplin
  120 F.2d 551· 9th Cir.· 1941-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff's book was submitted to the defendant Chaplin or his agents, thus failing to prove copyright infringement.
• LEE v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.
  838 F.2d 1186· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the accused devices do not infringe the design patent because the differences in ornamental appearance are sufficient to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived into purchasing one for the other.
• Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer California
  937 F.2d 759· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that while the rose itself and its arrangement were copyrightable, the defendant's design did not infringe because the roses were not substantially similar and the defendant's design was independently created.
• Concrete Mach. Co., Inc. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc.
  843 F.2d 600· 1st Cir.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 12×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction was based on an incorrect analysis of the likelihood of success on the merits, requiring remand for reconsideration.
• Blumcraft OF Pittsburgh v. The United States
  372 F.2d 1014· Ct. Cl.· 1967-02-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the design patent for a rail is valid and has been infringed by the defendant's unauthorized use of the patented design.
• Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. v. Maloney
  891 F. Supp. 1560· M.D. Fla.· 1995-07-03 ·cited 6×
  Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. and M. Pete McNabb, Inc. sued Dr. Scott Maloney, Michael Frketic Construction Management, Inc., and Marie Bradshaw for copyright infringement of architectural designs entitled "Jacaranda" and "Jacaranda II." The court found that Maloney obtained acces
• Arica Inst., Inc. v. Palmer
  970 F.2d 1067· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while Ichazo's decision to label the enneagram figure is copyrightable, the sequence of fixations and short phrases are not, and that the fair use defense must be considered for certain passages.
• Dawson v. Hinshaw Music Inc.
  905 F.2d 731· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 'ordinary observer' test for substantial similarity in copyright infringement cases must be tailored to the intended audience of the work, not just the general lay public, especially when that audience possesses specialized expertise.
• Eden Toys, Inc. v. Marshall Field & Co.
  675 F.2d 498· 2d Cir.· 1982-03-31 ·cited 6×
  The court should have found the snowmen substantially similar under the ordinary observer test, protecting the copyright holder's design.
• Malden Mills, Inc. v. Regency Mills, Inc.
  626 F.2d 1112· 2d Cir.· 1980-08-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the two textile designs were substantially similar, reversing the district court's denial of a permanent injunction.
• Burger Train Sys., Inc. v. Ballard
  552 F.2d 1377· 10th Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a trial court may grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict if the only patentable feature of a design is absent from the accused product, making the infringement question one of law. It also held that file wrapper estoppel does not preclude the doctrine of e
• Sanson Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Warren Knitting Mills, Inc.
  202 F.2d 395· 3d Cir.· 1953-02-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's stockings infringed the Bley design patent because the designs were substantially the same to an ordinary observer.
• Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Int'l Ltd. & Reebok Int'l Ltd.
  998 F.2d 985· Fed. Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider post-sale confusion for trademark and trade dress claims and by misapplying the Gorham test for design patent infringement.
• Oakley, Inc. v. Int'l Tropic-Cal, Inc.
  923 F.2d 167· Fed. Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The court vacated the preliminary injunction because the district court's findings of fact were insufficient to support its conclusions on patent infringement and Lanham Act violations, preventing meaningful appellate review.
• Lund Indus. v. GO Indus., Inc.
  938 F.2d 1273· Fed. Cir.· 1991-07-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court must compare an accused design to the patent claims, not to a previously infringing design, when determining design patent infringement in a new action.
• Nebel Knitting Co., Inc. v. Sanson Hosiery Mills, Inc.
  214 F.2d 781· 4th Cir.· 1954-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's stocking design infringes upon the plaintiff's design patents because the designs are substantially the same in appearance to an ordinary observer, despite minor differences.
• Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc.
  997 F.2d 1444· Fed. Cir.· 1993-06-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of invalidity for the '876 patent because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the claimed invention was on sale prior to the critical date. The court affirmed the district court's judg
• Tolife Techs. Pty Ltd v. The Individuals
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-03
  The court granted default judgment for trademark and design patent infringement, awarding permanent injunctive relief and statutory damages.
• Purple Innovation, LLC v. The Individuals
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for entry of final default judgment against the remaining defendants for trademark and design patent infringement.
• Pluginz Keychains LLC v. The Individuals
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-14
  The court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for default judgment, finding sufficient basis in the pleadings and evidence for liability and awarding statutory damages and injunctive relief.
• Teleties, LLC v. 1-18 As Identified in Schedule "A"
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-01
  The court granted the motion to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, a favorable balance of harms, and that the injunction would serve t
• Teleties, LLC v. 1-18 As Identified in Schedule "A"
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-09
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, alternative service, and expedited discovery.
• SAJ Grp., LLC v. Davidoff of Geneva USA Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-21
  The court held that the accused products do not infringe the plaintiff's design patents as a matter of law because the designs are sufficiently distinct when viewed as a whole by an ordinary observer.
• PainTEQ, LLC v. Omnia Med., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-13
  The court denied PainTEQ's motion for reconsideration, finding its arguments either procedurally improper or without merit under the applicable legal standards.
• XYZ Corp. v. THE Individuals
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-15
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for default final judgment, finding that the defaulting defendants infringed plaintiff's patent and were liable for damages and injunctive relief.
• PainTEQ, LLC v. Omnia Med., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-21
  PainTEQ, LLC and Omnia Medical, LLC, former business partners in the surgical device industry, engaged in a patent, copyright, and trademark dispute following the termination of their distribution agreement and PainTEQ's development of a competing surgical cannula product. The co
• XYZ Corp. v. The Individuals
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-04-04
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for default final judgment, finding sufficient allegations for patent and copyright infringement, and awarded injunctive relief and statutory damages.
• O.E. Wheel Distribs., LLC v. Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-07-25
  The court held that the amended complaint, which combined direct and indirect infringement theories in a single count, constituted a shotgun pleading and was dismissed without prejudice, but it was not so vague as to prevent Defendants from reasonably preparing a response.
• Delta T, LLC v. Dan's Fan City, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-04
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the accused Vogue fan infringes the '757 Patent, and therefore denied summary judgment for both parties on those claims. The court also denied summary judgment on other patent claims and willfulness.
• Delta T, LLC v. Dan's Fan City, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-05-25
  The court held that an expert is qualified to testify on survey design methodologies even without specific expertise in patent law, but testimony based solely on counsel's assertions regarding prior art is excluded.
• Delta T, LLC v. Dan's Fan City, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-09
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude Rake's testimony, excluding his opinions on lost profits but allowing his design comparison testimony, and denied the motion to exclude Mauro's testimony.
• Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Varona
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-01-25
  Volkswagen Group of America and Audi AG sued Varona and Verotec Wheels for selling counterfeit Audi wheels on eBay that infringed Audi's trademarks and design patent. The court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on all four counts of trademark infringement, false designation
• Int'l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.
  599 F. Supp. 2d 1307· S.D. Fla.· 2009-01-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's design patent was invalid because it was anticipated by prior art, specifically the Crocs '789 patent, and thus lacked the required uniqueness and inventiveness.
• Lentek Int'l, Inc. v. Sharper Image Corp.
  164 F. Supp. 2d 1302· N.D. Fla.· 2001-09-24
  The court denied Sharper Image's motion for summary judgment of design patent infringement for both the '551 and '001 patents, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding infringement. The court granted SI's motion for summary judgment on Lentek's claims of invalidity and u