Dam Things from Denmark, a/k/a Troll Company ApS v. Russ Berrie & Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
290 F.3d 548 (2002)
- Written by Margot Parmenter, JD
Facts
In the 1950s, Thomas Dam founded Dam Things from Denmark (Dam Things) (plaintiff), a company that manufactured and sold troll dolls. Dam Things held the Danish copyright in the dolls, and, in the 1960s, it sought US copyright registration for several versions of them. However, in 1965, the District Court for the District of Columbia found that the dolls had been published without proper notice and held that they were in the public domain. Russell Berrie founded a company (Russ) (defendant) that manufactured and sold troll items similar to Dam Things’ dolls. In the 1990s, Russ acquired fifteen copyrights for these items, which were registered as derivative works. After this acquisition, Congress amended the Copyright Act to extend automatic copyright restoration to foreign works that had previously entered the public domain under certain circumstances. The grounds for such restoration were enumerated in 17 U.S.C. § 104A. Using this statute, Dam Things sued Russ in federal district court, arguing that Russ’s activity infringed its restored copyright and seeking injunctive relief. On December 20, 2001, the district court granted Dam Things a preliminary injunction that would ultimately prohibit Russ from selling its troll-doll items. The case was then taken up by the Third Circuit on expedited appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rendell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
