Legal Opinion

E. I. Horsman & Ætna Doll Co. v. Kaufman

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 6, 1922No. Nos. 92-136PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOUGH, Circuit Judge.

Argument on these causes has gone beyond the necessities of decision; we prefer to base judgment on what •must be decided, not on matters that might be discussed.

*373Both litigations arise out of the making of one plaster image, which in 1914 was lawfully owned by plaintiffs predecessor. This image was a bust, representing, in the white of plaster, the head and shoulders of an infant, wearing the chubby empty smile which for a long time we have associated with dolls’ faces.

With some difficulty we assume the bust to have been a work of art, and therefore falling within section…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. King Features Syndicate v. FleischerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
  2. Uneeda Doll Co., Inc. v. Goldfarb Novelty Co., Inc. And Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
  3. Stein v. MazerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1953
  4. United Thrift Plan, Inc. v. National Thrift Plan, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1929
  5. Goes Lithographing Co. v. Apt Lithographic Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1936

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API