Case Name: TROW DIRECTORY PRINTING & BOOKBINDING CO. v. UNITED STATES DIRECTORY CO. et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1903-01-02
Citations: 122 F. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: TROW DIRECTORY PRINTING & BOOKBINDING CO. v. UNITED STATES DIRECTORY CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 122
Pages: 191–191

Head Matter:
TROW DIRECTORY PRINTING & BOOKBINDING CO. v. UNITED STATES DIRECTORY CO. et al.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
January 2, 1903.)
1. Copyright — Suit for Infringement — Preliminary Injunction.
In a suit to enjoin infringement of a copyright of a directory, a showing that a dozen erroneous'names and addresses appearing in complainant’s book have been duplicated in defendant’s is sufficient to entitle complainant to a preliminary injunction, and to affect defendant’s whole book, in the absence of a clear showing to overcome such prima facie case.
.In Equity. Suit for'- infringement of copyright. On motion for preliminary injunction.
Stephen H. Olin, for the motion.
Chas. E. Le Barbier, opposed.

Opinion:
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
The duplication of erroneous names and addresses which was disclosed by the moving papers presented a prima" facie case, which called for the fullest explanation. The explanation given in these voluminous affidavits does not fairly meet the case. It is vague, .incomplete, unsatisfactory, and, in view of the rebutting affidavits, apparently in part untruthful. There is much reference in the affidavits to "original canvass," but very little to indicate what it is. There is nothing to show sufficiently what individual in the employ of defendant was responsible for reproducing complainant's errors and "catch names" in defendant's book — no effort even to show how much of defendant's book that individual contributed. The taint of the dozen instances cited affects the whole book, until the method's of its construction are more fully displayed. Thé failure to present a copy of defendant's book,.even folded and stitched, is a suspicious circumstance, as was the destruction of "copy" in the Chicago case (recently decided) 122 Fed. 189.
Upon complainant's giving a bond in the amount of $5,000, injunction will be continued till final hearing, but it should be restricted to the New York section of defendants' directory.