Stevens Linen Associates, Inc. v. Mastercraft Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
656 F.2d 11 (1981)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
In 1976, Stevens Linen Associates, Inc. (Stevens) (plaintiff) created a new fabric design entitled Chestertown. Stevens began selling and marketing Chestertown and received copyright registration for the design. After seeing Chestertown on display, Mastercraft Corporation (Mastercraft) (defendant), a competitor in the fabric business, created two fabrics based on the Chestertown design. After learning of Mastercraft’s fabrics, Stevens brought a copyright-infringement suit. The district court held that Mastercraft’s fabrics infringed upon the Chestertown design, and the trial turned to the issue of damages. Stevens claimed compensatory damages for lost sales under a number of different theories. First, Stevens argued that lost sales should be calculated based on the total amount of Mastercraft’s sales of the two infringing fabrics. Alternatively, Stevens argued that it should be compensated for lost sales resulting from the infringement, based on sales projections of Chestertown fabric prior to the infringement. Finally, Stevens argued that lost sales could alternatively be calculated by sales of the infringing fabrics to customers who had also purchased Chestertown fabric. The district court rejected all of Stevens’s theories as too speculative. Stevens appealed the district court’s decision regarding compensatory damages.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lumbard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
