Legal Opinion
Knickerbocker Toy Co., Inc. v. Winterbrook Corp.
District Court, D. New Hampshire
Decided September 30, 1982No. Civ. 81-521-DPublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND OPINION
DEVINE, Chief Judge.
The manufacture and sale of a line of stuffed rag dolls gives rise to the instant copyright infringement action involving one of the world’s largest toy companies and a non-profit community action agency. At stake is the copyright status of two of America’s most beloved and well-known dolls, Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy. Subject matter jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332,1338, and 15 U.S.C. § 15.
Plaintiff Knickerbocker Toy Company, Inc. (“Knickerbocker”), a subsidiary of Warner Communications, is a Delaware corporation having its principal place…
2Cases cited66 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Robert C. Hahn v. Francis W. SargentCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1975
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- CMM Cable Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Past Pluto Productions Corp. v. DanaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1986
- EF Johnson Co. v. Uniden Corp. of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1985
- Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1988
- Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc. v. Peacock Jewelry, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.