Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer California, Macy’s New York, Inc., Lida Manufacturing Co., et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
937 F.2d 759 (1991)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Folio Impressions, Inc. (Folio) (plaintiff) sold printed fabric to women’s clothing manufacturers. Folio acquired rights to, and registered a copyright for, a rose-patterned fabric design. The fabric design contained three elements: the design of a rose, the background of the design, and the placement of the roses in straight lines against the background. Each rose was identical. After obtaining a sample of Folio’s rose-patterned fabric, Byer California, Macy’s New York, Inc., Lida Manufacturing Co., and others (collectively, the garment-industry associates) (defendants) created and used a rose fabric design in which the roses were placed in lines against a background. The roses were not identical and appeared more blurred than Folio’s roses. Folio filed a claim for copyright infringement of its rose fabric design. At trial, the garment-industry associates did not offer proof to counter the validity of Folio’s copyright for Folio’s rose design element of its fabric design. Regarding the background of Folio’s design, witnesses testified that the background had been copied from the public domain. The district court granted summary judgment to the garment-industry associates, and Folio appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cardamone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 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.