Source: https://casetext.com/case/pantone-inc-v-ai-friedman-inc
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 05:18:13
Document Index: 437031361

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 101', '§ 19', '§ 94', '§ 30', '§ 101', '§ 112', '§ 1125', '§ 43', '§ 43']

Pantone, Inc. v. A.I. Friedman, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 545 | Casetext Search + Citator
Pantone, Inc. v. A.I. Friedman, Inc.
Consol. Music Pub., Inc. v. Hansen Publications
The novelty of the art or thing described or explained has nothing to do with the validity of the copyright.…
Sargent v. American Greetings Corp.
Although defendant correctly points out that color is in the public domain, its assertion that color is…
Full title:PANTONE, INC., Plaintiff, v. A.I. FRIEDMAN, INC., Defendant
Date published: Dec 17, 1968
294 F. Supp. 545 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
holding that the arrangement and combination of bars of color in a color matching system was entitled to copyright protection
Summary of this case from Reader's Digest v. Conservative Digest, Inc.
Friedman Goodman, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiff.
Delson Gordon, New York City, for defendant.
Although the parties disagree as to copyrightability and infringement, the essential facts are not in dispute. It appears that the increasing use of costly colors in our ever-expanding volume of advertising media (magazines, newspapers, TV, etc.) and in commercial art has led to a demand by artists, manufacturers, designers and printers for the development of methods that will enable all segments to coordinate communications between each other with respect to color, with a view to avoiding errors and insuring understanding and faithful reproduction of shades for a specific use and medium. With this objective in mind plaintiff has invested large sums in the construction and outfitting of a color testing laboratory where it operates modern, expensive, analytical equipment to grind, test, produce, publish and reproduce colors in various forms. It has entered into written license agreements with various printing ink manufacturers, licensing its trademark color matching system and its know-how and formulas to them on certain conditions. As part of this system plaintiff created and published in 1963 a booklet called the "Pantone Matching System," of which it has sold some 200,000 copies for a total of approximately $700,000. The booklet represented the tangible result of plaintiff's efforts in the color matching field and constitutes the mainstay of its business. It consists of 72 pages, each bearing a series of bands of carefully selected colors which are arranged in a fashion or plan designed, through variation of certain basic colors, to provide an extensive range of selection derived from use of eight basic colors plus black and transparent white. Plaintiff's selection of the eight basic colors and of blends of these colors to provide a range of acceptable color values, presented in attractive gradations moving from one basic hue and its variations into another, was the product of a great deal of effort which required careful consideration of numerous artistic factors including the aesthetic attributes of each shade and its use in the commercial art field.
At the time when plaintiff's booklet was introduced to the trade there was nothing novel or original about the concept or use of color cards, color matching booklets, or other publications designed for selection or matching of colors. Many such booklets had long been on the market. Defendants, for instance, introduced into evidence some pre-existing color booklets that were substantially the same in size and shape as that created by plaintiff. (Both contain pages in the form of narrow cards held together with a swivel screw, each card imprinted with bands of colors.) Furthermore, some of the existing booklets offered color selections in a form that showed gradations of color ranging from yellow to deep blue. Plaintiff, however, contends that its arrangement and mode of expression of its color matching system is unique and original, and had never before to plaintiff's knowledge been presented in the form found in plaintiff's copyrighted booklet. Plaintiff's booklet, unlike any of the others shown to the Court, presents the color system in the following fashion: On each page of the booklet there appears a band of a single basic color or mixture of two basic colors (e.g., yellow, or yellow mixed with warm red). Variations in shade from this basic color or mixture, developed through formulas of the color or mixture which add black and white, are then shown as shades or tints on each side of the basic color or mixture of colors, together with the formulas for duplicating them, and Pantone's serial number. The resulting booklet offers a series of over 500 gradual shade variations, each keyed to a basic color or mixture of basic colors. Since color reproduction depends greatly on the type of paper surface to which a given color is applied, the booklet is divided into two sections, one showing the colors on coated paper, and the other on uncoated paper.
In order to be copyrightable plaintiff's work need not be strikingly unique or novel as long as its contribution is more than a trivial variation. Alfred Bell Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, 191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951) (per Frank, C.J.); Ketcham v. New York World's Fair 1939, 34 F. Supp. 657 (E.D.N.Y. 1940), affd., 119 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1941) (color plan for 1939 World's Fair).
"`Original' in reference to a copyrighted work means that the particular work `owes its origin' to the `author.' No large measure of novelty is necessary. Said the Supreme Court in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 102-103, 25 L.Ed. 841: `The copyright of the book, if not pirated from other works, would be valid without regard to the novelty, or want of novelty, of its subject-matter. The novelty of the art or thing described or explained has nothing to do with the validity of the copyright. To give to the author of the book an exclusive property in the art described therein, when no examination of its novelty has ever been officially made, would be a surprise and a fraud upon the public.'
"It is clear, then, that nothing in the Constitution commends that copyrighted matter be strikingly unique or novel. Accordingly, we were not ignoring the Constitution when we stated that a `copy of something in the public domain' will support a copyright if it is a `distinguishable variation'; or when we rejected the contention that `like a patent, a copyrighted work must be not only original, but new', adding, `That is not * * * the law as is obvious in the case of maps or compendia, where later works will necessarily be anticipated.' All that is needed to satisfy both the Constitution and the statute is that the `author' contributed something more than a `merely trivial' variation, something recognizably `his own.' Originality in this context `means little more than a prohibition of actual copying.' No matter how poor artistically the `author's' addition, it is enough if it be his own. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 250, 23 S.Ct. 298, 47 L.Ed. 460." (Alfred Bell Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, 191 F.2d 99 at 102-03)
The foregoing principles have been repeatedly affirmed in decisions holding that the test for determining copyrightability is originality (i.e., independent creation or individuality of expression) rather than novelty, and that originality of even the slightest degree, even if it amounts to no more than a re-arrangement of age-old ideas, is sufficient. Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Dixon Textile Corp., 280 F.2d 800, 802 (2d Cir. 1960), on remand, 188 F. Supp. 235 (S.D.N.Y. 1960); Gelles-Widmer v. Milton Bradley Co., 313 F.2d 143, 147 (7th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 913, 83 S.Ct. 1303, 10 L.Ed.2d 414 (1963) (educational type flash cards); Scott v. WKJG, Inc., 376 F.2d 467 (7th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 832, 88 S.Ct. 101, 19 L.Ed.2d 91 (1968); Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Acadia Co., 173 F. Supp. 292 (S.D.N.Y. 1959), affd., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1959); Amplex Mfg. Co. v. A.B.C. Plastic Fabricators, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 285 (E.D.Pa. 1960).
After careful examination of plaintiff's mode of expression, combination and arrangement of colors in its booklet in the light of the foregoing principles, and comparison with pre-existing color charts and exhibits shown to the Court, plaintiff's booklet appears to possess sufficient originality and uniqueness in its embodiment of its mode of expression to qualify it for copyrightability. Although the mere portrayal of a series of gradations of color shades, standing alone, would present a doubtful case for copyright protection, the arrangement here possessed the already described unique quality which apparently gained ready recognition on the part of artists in a critical profession. In an article written by defendant's sales manager entitled "New Developments in the Graphic Arts", which appeared in the June 1968 issue of "Print", a trade magazine, the author acknowledged the uniqueness of plaintiff's system, stating:
"This system provides a common language between the artist and the printer. * * * Although manufacturers have sold swatch books in the past (e.g., IPI), this system is unique. * * This system bridges the gap from the artist to the printer. * * *"
The originality of plaintiff's work lay in the new arrangement employed to facilitate selection and matching of colors, which was accomplished by placing each basic color or mixture in the center of each strip or page of related colors and then placing on each side of it the lighter tints achieved from addition of transparent white and on the other side of it the darker shades achieved by the addition of black. This embodiment or mode of expression had not previously been published and was the plaintiff's original creation. Some weight must also be given to the existence of valid certificates of registration issued by the Copyright Office, which give rise to at least prima facie evidence, or a presumption, of copyright validity. H.M. Kolbe Co. v. Armgus Textile Co., 184 F. Supp. 423 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), affd., 279 F.2d 555 (2d Cir. 1960); Home Art, Inc. v. Glensder Textile Corp., 81 F. Supp. 551, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1948); Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Wonnell, 61 F. Supp. 722, 725 (S.D.N Y 1945).
On September 23, 1968, plaintiff filed an application in the name of "Pantone Press, Inc. (also known as Pantone, Inc.)" for registration of a copyright in the same work, described as "Pantone Matching System Printers Edition," stating the date of publication to have been September 30, 1963. A Certificate of Registration, No. A17846, was thereupon issued by the Copyright Office to plaintiff. The duplication in copyright registrations of the same work arises out of an oversight: by 1968 the representative of the plaintiff who had executed the 1963 copyright application, and the attorney who handled it, had ceased to be associated with the plaintiff, with the result that in 1968 plaintiff's president, overlooking the fact that a copyright had been registered in 1963, filed and obtained registration of a new copyright claim to the same work. Both copyright applications gave the author's address as 461 8th Avenue, New York 1, N.Y. and used the name "Pantone."
P.M.S. is a Trademark of Pantone Matching System
On February 1, 1965, Pantone Press, Inc., plaintiff's wholly-owned subsidiary, assigned the copyright registration under Certificate No. A660106 to L.F. Dommerich Co., Inc., a finance company which has factored plaintiff's accounts receivable since 1965 and has since become a division of the Chemical Bank New York Trust Co. The assignment was executed solely as collateral to secure plaintiff's borrowings, the ownership in the copyright to pass to the assignee only in the event of a default, which has not occurred. Furthermore, the vice president of the Chemical Bank New York Trust Co. in charge of the Dommerich Division has submitted his affidavit and testified that the arrangement was for security purposes only and that the bank consented to plaintiff's institution of this suit for the purpose of enforcing its copyright and would, if required, join as a party plaintiff.
The color matching system distributed by the defendant consists of a four-page leaflet entitled "Transparent Color Sheets" which was produced by Para-Tone and introduced onto the market in 1968. It schedules a series of 23 rows of individual colors, with the rows arranged horizontally. Each row (except for two rows at the end), like each page of plaintiff's booklet, bears in the middle a sample of a basic color in a square area under a column headed "HUE" with two different variations labelled "Tints" in square areas on one side and three different variations labelled "Shades" in separate squares on the other side. Each of the "Tints" and "Shades", like the tints and shades shown on each page of plaintiff's work together with the basic hue, is achieved by addition of quantities of white or black, respectively, to the basic color, according to a formula supplied by Para-Tone. Likewise each of the "Hues", "Tints" and "Shades", like the basic colors, shades and tints found on each page of plaintiff's publication, bears a serial number (for ordering purposes) and all colors (as in plaintiff's system) are based on the use of eight primary colors, plus black and white. Like plaintiff's system, Para-Tone's system mixes the primary colors and adds black or white to arrive at 140 shades of color. Although the variety of colors offered in the Para-Tone booklet is less than that shown in plaintiff's booklet (which offers 500 colors), the system of arrangement and portrayal in both is essentially the same and is offered to artists, designers and printing manufacturers for the identical purpose. With respect to each color system, the artist is told that he can order artists' papers or sheets that will exactly match each of the varied shades shown on the sample booklet with assurance that identically reproduced colors will be furnished by printing ink manufacturers, to whom the originator of the system (Pantone in one case and Para-Tone in the other) have furnished mixing directions which set forth the correct formulas for use of the eight basic primary colors plus specific amounts of black and white to reproduce each shade. This substantial identity in the two systems and in their embodiment is illustrated by the following statement of defendant's sales manager describing the Para-Tone system:
The proof leaves no doubt about Para-Tone's access to plaintiff's work before publication of "Transparent Color Sheets." Although Para-Tone had, prior to 1968, published color sheets, they were substantially different from the booklet which is the subject of the present suit and did not seek to equate its colors with those of plaintiff through use of a cross-reference sheet. Furthermore, the Court is convinced, after a careful comparison of the two works, that the Para-Tone booklet's arrangement of material is so similar to the copyrightable arrangement found in plaintiff's work, including the juxtaposition and type of colors used, that Para-Tone must have used plaintiff's copyrighted book in the preparation of "Transparent Color Sheets" and the cross-reference sheet furnished in connection with it. Para-Tone's booklet therefore infringes upon plaintiff's copyright.
The record is equally clear that defendant, at the times when it distributed the Para-Tone leaflet and related materials to its customers, had access to or possession of plaintiff's copyrighted booklet. In fact defendant's sales manager, in his article entitled "New Developments in the Graphic Arts", published in the June 1968 edition of the magazine "Print", compared the two works. Defendant's conduct thereafter in distributing the infringing Para-Tone publication to its customers constituted an implementation of Para-Tone's unauthorized copying of plaintiff's work and was part and parcel of a selling or vending activity designed to use the infringing material for the purpose of permitting the sale and use of Para-Tone's system and materials. Since plaintiff's copyright gave it the exclusive right to "publish, copy and vend the copyrighted work", 17 U.S.C. § 1(a), it is entitled to injunctive relief against such unauthorized publication, copying or vending on the part of others. 17 U.S.C. § 101 (a); see Platt Munk, Inc. v. Republic Graphics, Inc., 315 F.2d 847 (2d Cir. 1963).
There is no merit to the various affirmative defenses asserted by the defendant. No valid support is offered for the contention that plaintiff's notice of copyright, which described its work as "Copyright 1963", was improper. The undisputed fact is that an earlier edition of the copyrighted work was registered by plaintiff's wholly-owned subsidiary, Pantone Press, Inc., in 1963 and that this edition was identical with the later edition registered by plaintiff in 1968, except for minor, immaterial differences. The notice fully conformed with Title 17 U.S.C. § 19 and Copyright Office Regulation 202.3(b)(3) thereunder.
Defendant's contention that plaintiff defrauded the Copyright Office by failing to mention, when it registered its work in 1968, "that material and substantial portions * * * had been previously published", apparently refers to plaintiff's mistaken reference in its 1968 application to the publication date as September 30, 1963 (instead of September 25, 1963) and that it was labelled "Pantone Matching System" with the added words (in smaller letters) "Printer's Edition". The defendant has filed affidavits, however, conceding that it has examined both works and finds them identical except for these differences, which are too immaterial and inconsequential to invalidate the registration certificate or render it fatally defective. Wrench v. Universal Pictures, 104 F. Supp. 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1952); Nimmer on Copyright § 94, page 355 (1964 ed.). Likewise the fact that the copyright claimant was described in the September 1968 application as "Pantone Press, Inc. (also known as Pantone, Inc.)" constituted an innocent immaterial variance of no legal significance. Pantone Press, Inc. was in fact identical with the plaintiff. Such technical minutiae do not afford a basis for defeating an otherwise valid copyright. United States v. Backer, 134 F.2d 533 (2d Cir. 1943); Alart Associates, Inc. v. Aptaker, 279 F. Supp. 268, 270 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).
Nor can the defendant escape responsibility on the ground that plaintiff executed a security assignment of the copyright to Dommerich. It is undisputed that the assignment was to effectuate a transfer of ownership to Dommerich only in event of default, which has not occurred, and that Dommerich consents to the plaintiff's enforcement of its copyright in the plaintiff's work. Thus the plaintiff continues as the real party in interest and is entitled, as both the equitable owner and copyright proprietor, to maintain this suit for infringement. Manning v. Miller Music Corp., 174 F. Supp. 192 (S.D.N.Y. 1959). The purpose of recordation of the assignment pursuant to Title 17, U.S.C. § 30 was to put subsequent purchasers or mortgagees on notice, New Fiction Pub. Co. v. Star, 220 F. 994 (S.D.N.Y. 1915). It did not destroy plaintiff's status as "the copyright proprietor" entitled to sue for damages, 17 U.S.C. § 101(b), and its right as a "party aggrieved" to seek injunctive relief, 17 U.S.C. § 112.
Section 43(a) of the United States Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), prohibits use of false designations or misrepresentations in connection with goods or services. Glenn v. Advertising Publications, Inc., 251 F. Supp. 889, 902-03 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). Whether one adopts a narrow interpretation of the statute (limiting it to the palming off of trademarked goods, Chamberlain v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 186 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1951)) or a broad view (that it prohibits any false representation in connection with goods or services, L'Aiglon Apparel, Inc. v. Lana Lobell, Inc., 214 F.2d 649 (3d Cir. 1954)), defendant's distribution of the offending leaflet and cross-reference sheet entitled "Para Tone New Colors" violated § 43(a), since these materials would lead the ordinary observer to believe that the Para-Tone colors and color system are the same as plaintiff's Pantone colors and system, whereas as defendant concedes, the Para-Tone colors, while closely similar to plaintiff's and arranged in a manner that copied plaintiff's unique arrangement, do differ in shade, tint and quality from the Pantone colors represented to be the same. For instance, the cross-reference sheet "Para Tone New Colors" shows Para-Tone's "Yellow #101", whereas in fact the former has a greener tinge to it than the latter. Similar differences pervade the two color matching systems. However, an artist, designer, ink manufacturer or innocent purchaser of color sheets, could be misled by the defendant's works, including the cross-reference sheet, into the belief that the two color systems were substantially the same and that each of the cross-referenced colors was identical. This, of course, could cause serious and harmful consequences to plaintiff's business, as well as to members of the trade thus misled. The misrepresentation is used to advertise and sell an inferior and less expensive system, which has repeatedly been condemned as a violation of § 43(a). Crossbow, Inc., et al. v. Dan Dee Imports, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1967); Zandelin v. Maxwell Bentley Manufacturing Co., Inc., 197 F. Supp. 608 (S.D.N.Y. 1961).
TINT P.T. P.M.S.
Tint 2 2503 101 Tint 1 2504 102 LEMON HUE 2505 Yellow YELLOW Shade 1 2506 103 Shade 2 2507 104 Shade 3 2508 105
Tint 2 2513 107 Tint 1 2514 108 CADMIUM HUE 2515 109 YELLOW Shade 1 2516 110 Shade 2 2517 111 Shade 3 2518 112
Tint 2 2523 128 Tint 1 2524 129 BURNT HUE 2525 130 ORANGE Shade 1 2526 131 Shade 2 2527 132 Shade 3 2528 133
Tint 2 2533 149 Tint 1 2534 150 ORANGE HUE 2535 151 Shade 1 2536 152 Shade 2 2537 153 Shade 3 2538 154
Tint 2 2543 177 Tint 1 2544 178 VERMILLION HUE 2545 WARM RED Shade 1 2546 186 Shade 2 2547 180 Shade 3 2548 181
Tint 2 2553 218 Tint 1 2554 219 RUBINE RED HUE 2555 RUBINE RED Shade 1 2556 220 Shade 2 2557 221 Shade 3 2558 222
Tint 2 2563 231 Tint 1 2564 232 RHODAMINE RED HUE 2565 RHODAMINE RED Shade 1 2566 233 Shade 2 2567 234 Shade 3 2568 235
Tint 1 2573 251 Tint 2 2574 252 PURPLE HUE 2575 PURPLE Shade 1 2576 253 Shade 2 2577 254 Shade 3 2576 255
Tint 1 2583 278 Tint 2 2584 279 REFLEX HUE 2585 Reflex Blue BLUE Shade 1 2586 280 Shade 2 2587 281 Shade 3 2588 282
Tint 1 2593 298 Tint 2 2594 299 ULTRA HUE 2595 300 BLUE Shade 1 2596 301 Shade 2 2597 302 Shade 3 2598 303
Tint 2 2603 305 Tint 1 2604 306 COBALT HUE 2605 Process Blue BLUE Shade 1 2606 307 Shade 2 2607 308 Shade 3 2608 309
Tint 2 2613 318 Tint 1 2614 319 THALO HUE 2615 320 BLUE Shade 1 2616 321 Shade 2 2617 322 Shade 3 2618 323
The addition of the words "Printers Edition" and rearrangement of the order of some of the introductory text (which otherwise was identical) constituted immaterial variations not affecting the issues here. Except for such minor, inconsequential differences, the works were identical.
Tint 2 2623 332 Tint 1 2624 333 THALO HUE 2625 Green GREEN Shade 1 2626 334 Shade 2 2627 335 Shade 3 2628 336
Tint 2 2633 338 Tint 1 2634 339 VIRIDIAN HUE 2635 340 Shade 1 2636 341 Shade 2 2637 342 Shade 3 2638 343
Tint 2 2643 352 Tint 1 2644 353 PERMANENT GREEN HUE 2645 354 Shade 1 2646 355 Shade 2 2647 356 Shade 3 2648 357
Tint 2 2653 366 CHROME Tint 1 2654 367 OXIDE Hue 2655 368 GREEN Shade 1 2656 369 Shade 2 2657 370 Shade 3 2658 371
Tint 2 2663 373 Tint 1 2664 374 YELLOW HUE 2665 375 GREEN Shade 1 2666 376 Shade 2 2667 377 Shade 3 2668 378
Tint 2 2673 387 Tint 1 2674 388 CHARTREUSE HUE 2675 389 Shade 1 2676 390 Shade 2 2677 391 Shade 3 2678 392
Tint 2 2683 474 Tint 1 2684 473 RAW SIENNA HUE 2685 472 Shade 1 2686 471 Shade 2 2687 470 Shade 3 2688 469
Tint 2 2693 481 Tint 1 2694 480 RAW HUE 2695 479 UMBER Shade 1 2696 478 Shade 2 2697 477 Shade 3 2698 476
#1 2701 427 #2 2702 428 #3 2703 429 COOL #4 2704 430 GREY #5 2705 431 #6 2706 432 #7 2707 433
#1 2711 406 #2 2712 407 WARM #3 2713 408 GREY #4 2714 409 #5 2715 410 #6 2716 411 #7 2717 412
BLACK #2720
WHITE #2721
GOLD #2722
finding that the combination and arrangement of color in a color matching system was entitled to protection
In Pantone, Inc. v. A.I. Friedman, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 545 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), the plaintiff had developed a color matching system that was embodied in a copyrighted booklet entitled "Pantone Matching System."
Summary of this case from Sargent v. American Greetings Corp.