Document: 344 U.S. 228 73 S.Ct. 222 97 L.Ed. 276 F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.v.CONTEMPORARY ARTS, Inc. No. 42. Argued Nov. 17, 1952. Decided Dec. 22, Mr. Kenneth Greenawalt, New York City, for petitioner. Cedric Porter, Boston, Mass., respondent. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent brought this action under Copyright Act to recover infringement copyright on a work art entitled 'Cocker-Spaniel in Show Position.' The District Court found copyright, which respondent was assignee, valid and infringed awarded statutory damages $5,000, with $2,000 attorney's fee. Appeals affirmed.1 We granted certiorari,2 limiting issues measure recovery, as conflict appears among lower courts.3 2 made small sculptures figurines, were statutes cocker spaniel, marketed them chiefly through gift shops. Petitioner, from different source, bought 127 dozen spaniel statuettes distributed thirty-four Woolworth stores. Unbeknown Woolworth, these dogs had been copied respondent's by marketing it became an infringer. 3 By infringer becomes liable— 4 'To pay proprietor such may have suffered due infringement, well all profits shall proving plaintiff be required prove sales only, defendant every element cost he claims, or lieu actual profits, court appear just, assessing may, its discretion, allow amounts hereinafter stated * no other case exceed sum $5,000 nor less than $250, not regarded penalty. *' 17 U.S.C. § 101(b), U.S.C.A. 101(b). 5 Profits petitioner sufficiently proved enable assessment that liability. Petitioner itself showed, without contradiction, at 60 cents apiece sold $1.19 each, yielding gross profit $899.16. did assume burden, statute casts upon it, any costs might deductible, so figure is left stand factor infringer's total 6 As ingredient computing liability, proprietor, record inadequate establish actually sustained amount. Enough indicate real substantial injury inflicted. annual income about $35,000 engaged only eight employees, indicating production. Its three media prices: red plaster retailed $4, porcelain $9, while black white $15. There evidence cheaper infringing statuette inferior quality. loss some customers offered, but allowed, show complaints outlets competition, decline sales, eventual abandonment line unsalable stock hand. trial judge excluded struck most testimony ground authority rendered proof damage unnecessary. It better practice received evidence, even if fell short establishing liability; when recovery injury, cannot hurt aid exercise discretion hear subject has probative value. However, complain exclusion, response objections. At length, said: 'If you inescapably clear there enough predicate up $5,000. I don't think Barnes (counsel defendant) disagrees that. Do you?' Barnes: 'No, your honor.' 7 court, having accordingly allowed 'statutory amount Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) provided Laws United States,' injunction 8 Petitioner's contention here misapplied because own $899.16 supplied exclusive argues defendant, coming forward undisputed admission can tie hands limit agree. 9 In Douglas v. Cunningham, 294 207, 209, 55 365, 366, 79 862, we 10 'The phraseology section adopted avoid strictness construction incident law imposing penalties, give owner recompense done him, where rules render difficult impossible discovery profits.' 11 To fulfill purpose, interpreted vest broad determine whether more just based calculation one necessarily somewhat arbitrary estimate within limits permitted Act. 12 'In words, court's conception what particular case, considering nature circumstances like, paid, express qualification must prescribed limitations, say, neither maximum minimum. Within limitations sense justice are controlling, proceeding provision go outside them.' L. A. Westermann Co. Dispatch Printing Co., 249 100, 106—107, 39 194, 195, 63 499. 13 Few bodies would reduce simple formula determines recoverable actionable wrongs. necessary flexibility do variety situations cases present achieved wide judicial limited conferred statute. plain choice between computed imputed controlled his greatly exceeded Indeed margin cause article higher price. 14 Whether discretionary resort estimation should determined taking into account both components difficulties way either. realized established uncontradicted bounds concluding computable testimony. Lack adequate either warrant always limitations. 15 before us illustrates capricious results follow contends. admitted make deduction costs, overheads taxes and, hence, record. But recover, remain after reduces them, allowable elements cost. If sustain petitioner's sole liability matter law, could diminished vanishing point. 16 Net far-flung distributing enterprise like Woolworth's given item few many stores calculated process allocating overheads, expenses, taxes, host items. A position hardly verify contest apportionments unless audit whole business. Moreover, rule merely takes away offer little discouragement infringers. fall effective sanction enforcement policy. rule, formulated long experience, compels restitution reparation also designed discourage wrongful conduct. permit purposes. Even uninjurious unprofitable invasions deems impose vindicate 18 cites Sheldon Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 390, 399, 681, 684, 84 825, said 'in lieu' clause 'is applicable here, question their apportionment,' statement leans almost weight. net exhibition picture $587,604.37. value himself copyright; indeed, negotiated sale $30,000. cut award fifth thereof, success largely factors contributed infringement. propriety reduction issue asserted involved here.' This agreed those facts appropriate. That now here. Nor does anything Jewell-LaSalle Realty Buck, 283 202, 51 407, 408, 75 978, light facts, support holds use permissible, 'there being damages,' hold partial unacceptable will preclude clause. 19 empowers sound proven estimated just. find abuse discretion. 20 judgment below affirmed. 21 Affirmed. 22 BLACK, whom FRANKFURTER concurs, dissenting. 23 earthenware infringe Company good faith $914.40. dogs' 101(b) Act, 101, 101. authorizes manifestly unjust exaction. pointed out 400—401, analogous patent section, intended 'one other, whichever greater.' Under case. 24 Reliance awarding against naturally placed provides excess profits'. purpose 'where 862. Here impossible. And carefully considered supra, page Chief Hughes speaking declared, '* *.' See same effect Davilla Brunswick-Balke Collender Cir., 94 F.2d 567; Sammons Colonial Press, 126 341. adhere view Woolworth. heed admonition remember object inflict punishment injured fairness 'and nothing beyond this.' 684. 25 following bear unfairness awarded. contended district fair impartial trial. contention', said, 'the appellant points several instances irrelevant prejudicial comments remarks' judge. Considering judge's remarks 'both unseemly uncalled for', 26 'But careful consideration concluded unsaid, quoted, rise seriousness reversible error. Having regard convincing plaintiff's proof, unconvincing feel decision reached attributed bias prejudice. really trial.' 193 162, 169. 27 accept Appeals' appraisal consequences factual gave smacks punitive qualities. held committed unreviewable 210, directed Company, right imposed ought stand. 28 reverse remand new another 162. 343 963, 72 1061. Contemporary Arts, 167—169; 341, 350; Malsed Marshall Field & D.C., 96 F.Supp. 372, 376 377.

Category: 7