Silvertop Associates Inc. (DBA Rasta Imposta) sued Kangaroo Manufacturing Inc. for copyright and trade dress infringement, and unfair competition. Rasta prayed for a preliminary injunction and Kangaroo defended the case to cancel the prayer.
The District Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction. Being dissatisfied with the decision Kangaroo appealed against the judgment before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The validity of the copyright of the banana costume created by Rasta is one of the issues of the case. Copyrightable subject matter means original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. Section 101 and 102 speaks about originality and authorship. Registering a work’s copyright within five years of the work’s first publication entitles the holder to a presumption of validity.
In 2010, Rasta obtained Copyright Registration for its full-body banana costume. After two years Rasta began working with a company called Yagoozon Inc., which purchased and resold thousands of Rasta’s banana costumes. Yagoozon’s founder, Justin Ligeri, started Kangaroo Manufacturing. The appellant was aware of Rasta’s copyright registration in the banana costume.
Both the parties were not in good terms in their business relationship. After the business relationship ended, Rasta’s CEO discovered that the appellant was selling the copyrighted costume without a license. When Rasta alleged Kangaroo for infringement the appellant questioned the validity of the copyright.
The Court observed that the banana costume is a useful article. The Court explained that a useful article’s design feature is eligible for copyright if, when identified and imagined apart from the useful article, it would qualify as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or when fixed in some other tangible medium. Kangaroo pointed out the natural factors of fruit. It stated that natural objects in natural conditions are not eligible for copyright.
It was held that the non-utilitarian, sculptural features of this costume are just such an exception. Therefore the artistic features of banana’s costume are both separable and capable of independent existence and are copyrightable.
To proof that Rasta’s banana costume is ineligible for protection Kangaroo supported their argument with two copyright doctrines namely merger and scenes a fair. The appellant contended that copyrighting a banana costume would protect the idea or expression and ideas are not allowed to get the shield of copyright. In reply to this Rasta presented twenty non-infringing banana costumes which are different from each other. Convinced with the examples the Court rejected the contentions of Kangaroo.
The Court affirmed the judgement of the District Court as Rasta established a reasonable likelihood that it could prove entitlement to protection for the veritable fruits of its intellectual labour.
To visit, Trademarkclick.com, Click Here
Picture Source :
