Opinion ID: 474193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Universal's License of Tiger's King Kong Video Game

Text: 59 The district court found that Universal vicariously infringed Nintendo's copyright in Donkey Kong by licensing the competing King Kong game made by Tiger. The court found that Universal knowingly contributed to this infringement, and awarded Nintendo the profits Universal accrued on the Tiger license, totaling $56,689.41. 60 On appeal, Universal argues that the district court erred by failing to specify which part of Nintendo's arcade game represented protectible expression as distinguished from the underlying and unprotectible idea. Further, Universal argues that the characters involved in Donkey Kong are not protectible because they are not wholly fanciful. 61 The district court specified the protectible aspect of Donkey Kong with reasonable precision. It recognized that the game characters themselves were not protectible, but found that the interaction of the characters, obstacles, background and music were arbitrary, fanciful, and sufficiently distinctive such that they deserve protection.... 615 F.Supp. at 859-60. 62 The district court's finding is further buttressed by Universal's initial termination of the Tiger license and the admission to Nintendo by Robert Hadl, a vice president of Universal, that Universal recognized that the Tiger game infringed Nintendo's copyright in Donkey Kong. 63 The district court also awarded attorney's fees of $83,525.05 to Nintendo for the time spent on the vicarious copyright infringement claim. 615 F.Supp. at 864. Universal appeals from this award. 64 The district court awarded attorney's fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Sec. 505 which provides that [t]he court in its discretion ... may award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party. This circuit has long held that such an award lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Orgel v. Clark Boardman Co., 301 F.2d 119, 122 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 817, 83 S.Ct. 31, 9 L.Ed.2d 58 (1962). 65 Given the findings noted above, an award of attorney's fees was well within the district court's discretion. Roth v. Pritikin, 787 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir.1986); see also Diamond v. Am-Law Publishing Corp., 745 F.2d 142, 148 (2d Cir.1984). 66