Case ID: f_188/html/0864-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LESSER v. GEORGE BORGFELDT & CO.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    June 22, 1911.)
    Copyrights (§ 82) — Infringement—Actioxs—Exhibition.
    Where there was nothing to show that a copyright alleged to have been infringed was a sculpture or other similar work or that the production of a copy was not feasible, defendant was entitled to have a copy of the alleged infringement, and a copy of the work alleged to have been infringed upon, accompany the petition as required by Supreme Court Practice Rule 2, in effect July 1, 1909.
    I Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Copyrights, Cent. Dig. §§ 72, 73; Dec. Dig. § 82.]
    In Equity. Suit by Elizabeth Eesser against George Borgfeldt & Co. for infringement of copyright. On motion to compel complainant to attach a copy of the alleged infringement, and of the work alleged to have been infringed, to the petition.
    Granted.
    
      
      For other cafes see same topic & § number in De'c. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The Rule of Practice (No. 2) adopted by the Supreme Court and which went into effect July 1, 1909, provides that “a copy of the alleged infringement of copyright, if actually made, and a copy of the work alleged to be infringed, should accompany the petition, or its absence be explained.” No such copies have been submitted, and defendant is entitled to the relief asked for, unless the case comes within one of the exceptions contained in the rule. The record does not show that the copyright is a “sculpture or other similar work,” and there is nothing to show that the production of “copy” is not feasible.

Motion granted.