Substantial Similarity

195 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Palmer v. Braun
  155 F. Supp. 2d 1327· M.D. Fla.· 2001-07-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of their copyright infringement claim was too tenuous to warrant injunctive relief.
• Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Frena
  839 F. Supp. 1552· M.D. Fla.· 1993-12-09 ·cited 7×
  The court held that Defendant Frena infringed Plaintiff's copyrights by distributing unauthorized copies of photographs and infringed Plaintiff's trademarks by using PLAYBOY® and PLAYMATE® in file descriptors for those images.
• Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures L.C.
  469 F. Supp. 2d 1148· S.D. Fla.· 2006-07-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's copyrights did not support a claim for direct copyright infringement, thus dismissing all derivative claims.
• 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.
• Ludis J. Cooper v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  945 F.2d 1103· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that evidence of dissimilar accidents is admissible for impeachment of expert witnesses, and that the exclusion of OSHA regulations was harmless error.
• 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.
• Danton Burroughs v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
  683 F.2d 610· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that MGM's 1981 film did not infringe plaintiffs' copyrights as it was substantially similar to the 1932 film to the extent permitted by the 1931 agreement, and complied with the agreement's terms.
• 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.
• John Alden Homes, Inc. v. Kangas
  142 F. Supp. 2d 1338· M.D. Fla.· 2001-04-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendants' home design was not substantially similar to the plaintiff's copyrighted work, thus no copyright infringement occurred.
• Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Starware Publ'g Corp.
  900 F. Supp. 433· S.D. Fla.· 1995-05-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant's distribution of CD-ROMs containing digitized copies of plaintiff's photographs constituted copyright infringement.
• BellSouth Adv. & Pub. v. Donnelley Inf. Pub.
  719 F. Supp. 1551· S.D. Fla.· 1988-10-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Donnelley's wholesale copying of BAPCO's copyrighted directory constituted copyright infringement, and the fair use defense was not applicable.
• Arthur Rutenberg Corp. v. Dawney
  647 F. Supp. 1214· M.D. Fla.· 1986-10-31 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendants willfully infringed the plaintiffs' copyright in architectural plans, entitling the plaintiffs to recover the defendants' profits and attorneys' fees.
• Douglas Q. Wickham for the Bankruptcy Estate of Marc Arion Cardoso v. Knoxville Int'l Energy Exposition, Inc.
  739 F.2d 1094· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that summary judgment was proper because no substantial similarity existed between the plaintiff's copyrighted architectural drawings and the defendants' Sunsphere design, even if access was proven.
• Home Design Servs., Inc. v. Turner Heritage Homes Inc.
  825 F.3d 1314· 11th Cir.· 2016-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The concurring opinion agrees with the panel's conclusion that precedent requires affirmance of the district court's judgment but argues that the precedent itself, Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., represents a flawed approach to copyright jurispruden
• Alisha Nicole Vice v. State
  39 So. 3d 352· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-06-09 ·cited 4×
  Alisha Nicole Vice was convicted of aggravated child abuse and child neglect for injuries to a three-month-old infant. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Williams rule e
• Lifetime Homes, Inc. v. Residential Dev. Corp.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 794· M.D. Fla.· 2007-02-23 ·cited 4×
  The court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on copyright ownership and defendant's access to the design, but denied it on other grounds. The court also granted summary judgment for some defendants but denied it for others, and denied a motion to exclude settlemen
• PortionPac Chem. Corp. v. Sanitech Sys., Inc.
  217 F. Supp. 2d 1238· M.D. Fla.· 2002-07-25 ·cited 4×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on most copyright claims, finding no substantial similarity or that the elements were unprotectable, but denied summary judgment on the washing chart and software claims, and granted summary judgment for the defendant on trade
• Lajoie v. Pavcon, Inc.
  146 F. Supp. 2d 1240· M.D. Fla.· 2001-03-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Craft LaJoie residence plans did not infringe upon Kingon's copyrighted Grand Floridian plans because the differences in elevation, size, and exterior features were significant, rendering the overall works not substantially similar.
• MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng'g Co., Inc.
  864 F. Supp. 1568· S.D. Fla.· 1994-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the abstraction-filtration-comparison test is the appropriate framework for analyzing copyright infringement claims involving nonliteral elements of computer programs.
• Lorna L. Nelson v. PRN Prods., Inc.
  873 F.2d 1141· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in determining no substantial similarity existed between the lyrics and in denying discovery requests.
• The Mihalek Corp. & Lawrence Patrick Mihalek v. The State OF Mich.
  814 F.2d 290· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was no substantial similarity between the plaintiff's copyrighted materials and the state's advertising campaign, thus no copyright infringement or Lanham Act violation occurred.
• Goodson-Todman Enters., Ltd. v. Kellogg Co. & Leo Burnett Co., Inc.
  513 F.2d 913· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because substantial similarity between the copyrighted expression and the defendant's commercial presented a question of fact for an evidentiary hearing. The court also reversed the dismissal of common law claims as they were
• Midwestern Wholesale Drug, Inc. v. GAS Serv. Co.
  442 F.2d 663· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of experiments on a similar, undamaged heater was admissible to illustrate expert testimony regarding the normal operation of the heater alleged to have caused the fire. The court also held that the trial court did not err in refusing a directed verdi
• Newby v. State
  272 So. 3d 862· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-05-29 ·cited 3×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding reverse Williams rule evidence when the defendant offers evidence of similar crimes committed by another person to show the defendant did not commit the charged offense, if the evidence would have been admissible under the Williams
• Luken v. Int'l Yacht Council, Ltd.
  581 F. Supp. 2d 1226· S.D. Fla.· 2008-09-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a prevailing party under the Copyright Act can be eligible for attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 and § 412(2) even if they elect to receive actual damages instead of statutory damages.
• Davis v. Little Giant Ladder Sys., LLC
  2011 WL 833260· M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The court granted and denied various motions in limine, excluding evidence of unrelated incidents, certain recall information, and prior dismissed claims, while allowing evidence related to exemplar ladders and ANSI standards.
• Conway v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
  2007 WL 1752838· S.D. Fla.· 2022-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court ruled on various motions in limine, granting some requests to exclude evidence and denying others, often deferring rulings to trial due to lack of context or prematurity.
• Dream Custom Homes, Inc. v. Modern Day Constr., Inc.
  773 F. Supp. 2d 1288· M.D. Fla.· 2011-02-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that summary judgment may be appropriate in copyright cases involving architectural works if, after adequate discovery, no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding substantial similarity of protectable elements.
• Green Bullion Fin. Servs., LLC v. Money4gold Holdings, Inc.
  639 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2009-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for its copyright, trademark, or false advertising claims, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Home Design Servs., Inc. v. David Weekley Homes, LLC
  548 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2008-02-19 ·cited 2×
  Home Design Services, Inc. sought copyright protection for an architectural design (the 2041) under two registrations: one as an architectural work and one as a technical drawing. The district court held that the architectural work copyright was invalid because the design had bee
• Lifetime Homes, Inc. v. Walker Homes, Inc.
  485 F. Supp. 2d 1314· M.D. Fla.· 2007-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that although the defendants intentionally copied elements from derivative architectural designs, their final design was not substantially similar to the original copyrighted work, and therefore, no copyright infringement occurred.
• Fun Spot of Fla., Inc. v. Magical Midway of Cent. Fla., Ltd.
  242 F. Supp. 2d 1183· M.D. Fla.· 2002-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting summary judgment for plaintiffs on several affirmative defenses and part of the counterclaim, while denying summary judgment for defendants on their motion.
• Campbell v. Osmond
  917 F. Supp. 1574· M.D. Fla.· 1996-03-04 ·cited 2×
  Campbell, a doll head sculptor, sued Osmond, Knickerbocker, Knickerbocker Creations, and Wal-Mart for copyright infringement, Lanham Act violation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, alleging that Creations' agent purchased her doll molds under false pretenses
• Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
  977 F.2d 1555· Fed. Cir.· 1992-10-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act does not require copying of the entire chip for infringement, and that substantial similarity to a material portion is sufficient. The court also affirmed the jury's findings regarding infringement and the reverse engineer
• Lakedreams v. Taylor
  932 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that Lakedreams demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its copyright infringement claim.
• Shields v. Sturm
  864 F.2d 379· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting or excluding evidence and that any error in jury instructions regarding the standard of care was harmless.
• Leonard Bros. Indus. Contractors & Riggers Co., Inc. v. The Burke Co.
  529 So. 2d 779· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-07-26 ·cited 2×
  Florida appellate court reversed a products liability judgment and ordered a new trial because the trial court erred in excluding expert witnesses whose testimony was based on a sufficient chain of custody and similarity of the tested metal lifting inserts to those allegedly invo
• United States v. O'Reilly
  794 F.2d 613· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove copyright infringement, as substantial similarity to copyrighted works was demonstrated.
• Thurman v. Whitfield
  751 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact exist regarding whether the defendants implicitly agreed to pay for the plaintiff's ideas and whether the televised series was substantially similar to the plaintiff's script.
• Schultz v. Holmes
  264 F.2d 942· 9th Cir.· 1959-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, affirming the judgment for the defendants.
• Cholvin v. B. & F. Music Co., Inc.
  253 F.2d 102· 7th Cir.· 1958-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence and inferences supported the trial court's findings of copying and appropriation, and that the restriction on cross-examination was not prejudicial.
• Funkhouser v. Loew's, Inc.
  208 F.2d 185· 8th Cir.· 1953-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant's motion picture did not infringe upon the plaintiff's literary works, as any similarities were due to common historical subject matter and not substantial copying.
• Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC
  745 F. Supp. 2d 1359· S.D. Fla.· 2010-10-05 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to overcome issue preclusion, and thus could not relitigate the genericness of the term 'ale house' on a nationwide basis.
• Saregama India Ltd. v. Mosley
  687 F. Supp. 2d 1325· S.D. Fla.· 2009-12-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the 1967 agreement conveyed at most a two-year exclusive license and a non-exclusive license thereafter, not a copyright assignment, and that the sampled portion of the song was de minimis.
• Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. v. Berger
  910 F. Supp. 603· M.D. Fla.· 1995-11-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the movant failed to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding copyright ownership and infringement, thus denying the motion for summary judgment.
• JOY v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
  999 F.2d 549· D.C. Cir.· 1993-07-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that evidence of other SAG failures was admissible and jury instructions on product liability were proper, but reversed a damages award for loss of consortium and certified a question regarding the District of Columbia's liability for the rescue effort.
• Designer's View, Inc. v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc.
  764 F. Supp. 1473· S.D. Fla.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove copyright infringement because the defendant's panels were not substantially similar to the copyrighted works, and the unfair competition claim was preempted by the Copyright Act.
• Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Casey & Casey, Inc.
  622 F. Supp. 201· S.D. Fla.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements for a preliminary injunction, specifically a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Helayne Seidman v. Tomato Joe's Pizza, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-15
  The court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, finding that Defendant infringed Plaintiff's copyright and violated the DMCA by removing copyright management information.