Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/98637/f-w-woolworth-co-vs-contemporary-arts-inc
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 18:08:18
Document Index: 157764767

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101']

F W Woolworth Co Vs Contemporary Arts Inc - Citation 98637 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
F. W. Woolworth Co. Vs. Contemporary Arts, Inc. - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/98637
Case Number 344 U.S. 228
Appellant F. W. Woolworth Co.
Respondent Contemporary Arts, Inc.
.....to establish the amount of damage actually sustained. the trial court allowed recovery of $5,000 "statutory damages." held: the award of damages in the amount of $5,000 was authorized by 17 u.s.c. § 101(b). pp. 344 u. s. 229 -234. (a) the fact that petitioner proved that its gross profit from the infringement was $899.16 does not limit recovery to that amount. pp. 344 u. s. 231 -233. (b) sheldon v. metro-goldwyn pictures corp., 309 u. s. 390 , and jewell-lasalle realty co. v. buck, 283 u. s. 202 , distinguished. p. 344 u. s. 234 . (c) the statute empowers the trial court, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, to determine whether, on all the facts, a recovery upon proven profits and damages or one estimated.....
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. - 344 U.S. 228 (1952)
U.S. Supreme Court F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228 (1952)
Held: The award of damages in the amount of $5,000 was authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 101(b). Pp. 344 U. S. 229 -234.
(a) The fact that petitioner proved that its gross profit from the infringement was $899.16 does not limit recovery to that amount. Pp. 344 U. S. 231 -233.
(b) Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U. S. 390 , and Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. v. Buck, 283 U. S. 202 , distinguished. P. 344 U. S. 234 .
(c) The statute empowers the trial court, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, to determine whether, on all the facts, a recovery upon proven profits and damages or one estimated within the statutory limits is more just, and there was no abuse of that discretion in this case. P. 344 U. S. 234 .
In an action under the Copyright Act to recover for infringement of copyright, the District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, respondent here. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 193 F.2d 162. This Court granted a limited writ of certiorari. 343 U.S. 963. Affirmed, p. 344 U. S. 234 .
Respondent brought this action under the Copyright Act to recover for infringement of copyright on a work of art entitled "Cocker-paniel in Show Position." The District Court found the copyright, of which respondent was assignee, valid and infringed, and awarded statutory damages of $5,000, with a $2,000 attorney's fee. The Court of Appeals affirmed. [ Footnote 1 ] We granted certiorari, [ Footnote 2 ] limiting the issues to the measure of the recovery, as to which conflict appears among lower courts. [ Footnote 3 ]
In Douglas v. Cunningham, 294 U. S. 207 , 294 U. S. 209 , we said:
L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 249 U. S. 100 , 249 U. S. 106 -107.
Petitioner cites Sheldon v. Metro-oldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U. S. 390 , 309 U. S. 399 , where this Court said that the "in lieu" clause "is not applicable here, as the profits have been proved, and the only question is as to their apportionment," a statement on which petitioner leans almost its whole weight. There, net profits from exhibition of an infringing picture were found to be $587,604.37. The copyright owner could show no such value to himself of his copyright; indeed, he had negotiated its sale at $30,000. The Court of Appeals cut the award of these actual profits to one-fifth thereof upon the ground that success of the picture had been largely due to factors not contributed by the infringement. The propriety of this reduction was the sole issue before this Court. Petitioner copyright owner asserted that, in such circumstances, the "in lieu" clause "is not involved here." This Court agreed that, under those facts, resort to the statute was not appropriate. That case did not present the question now here. Nor does anything in Jewell-aSalle Realty Co. v. Buck, 283 U. S. 202 , in the light of its facts, support petitioner. It holds use of the "in lieu" clause permissible, "there being no proof of actual damages," but it does not hold that partial or unacceptable proof on that subject will preclude resort to the "in lieu" clause.
good faith at a total cost of $914.40. Woolworth's total profit from the sale of the dogs was $899.16. The Court now holds that Woolworth must pay the dogs' copyright owner $5,000. This award is said to be allowed by § 101(b) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101. We do not think that section authorizes any such manifestly unjust exaction. This Court pointed out in Sheldon v. Metro-oldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U. S. 390 , 309 U. S. 400 -401, that § 101, like an analogous patent law section, was not intended to award a copyright owner both damages and profits, but only "one or the other, whichever was the greater." Under this rule, profits only should be awarded to respondent in this case.
Reliance for awarding $5,000 against Woolworth is naturally placed on that provision of § 101(b) which provides for damages not in excess of $5,000 "in lieu of actual damages and profits." But this Court has said that the purpose of this section was to recompense for injury done "where the rules of law render difficult or impossible proof of damages or discovery of profits." Douglas v. Cunningham, 294 U. S. 207 , 294 U. S. 209 . Here, proof of profits was neither difficult nor impossible. And, in the carefully considered case of Sheldon v. Metro-oldwyn Pictures Corp., supra, at 309 U. S. 399 , Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, speaking for the Court, declared, " . . . the in lieu' clause is not applicable here, as the profits have been proved. . . ." See also, to the same effect, Davilla v. Brunswick-alke Collender Co., 94 F.2d 567; Sammons v. Colonial Press, 126 F.2d 341. We would adhere to this view, and limit this recovery to profits made by Woolworth. This Court should heed the admonition given in the Sheldon case to remember that the object of § 101(b) is not to inflict punishment, but to award an injured copyright owner that which in fairness is his, "and nothing beyond this." Sheldon v. Metro-oldwyn Pictures Corp., supra, at 309 U. S. 399 .
We accept the Court of Appeals' appraisal of the consequences of the judge's remarks on the factual issue of copyright infringement. But here, the trial judge gave judgment for statutory damages in an amount that smacks of punitive qualities. And this Court has held that the amount of such damages is committed to the unreviewable discretion of a trial judge. Douglas v. Cunningham, 294 U. S. 207 , 294 U. S. 210 . In view of the remarks of the trial judge directed against the Woolworth Company, we think it had a just right to complain that the amount of damages imposed ought not to stand.