Legal Opinion
Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 2, 1987No. 828, Docket 86-6260PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OAKES, Circuit Judge:
In passing the Copyright Act of 1976 Congress attempted to distinguish between *1143protectable “works of applied art” and “industrial designs not subject to copyright protection.” See H.R.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 54, reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News ,5659, 5667 (hereinafter H.R.Rep. No. 1476). The courts, however, have had difficulty framing tests by which the fine line establishing what is and what is not copyrightable can be drawn. Once again we are called upon to draw such a line, this time in a case involving the “RIBBON Rack,” a bicycle rack made…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Mazer v. SteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Lesportsac, Inc. v. K Mart CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Warner Bros. Inc. v. Gay Toys, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software InternationalDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1990
- Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Pivot Point International, Incorporated, Cross-Appellee v. Charlene Products, Incorporated and Peter YauCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.