Concrete MacHinery Company, Inc. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “when the points of dissimilarity not only exceed the points of similarity, but indicate that the remaining points of similarity are ... of minimal importance ... no infringement results”
• considering differences of size and of direction in which head of deer points to be minor or trivial variations, insufficient to avoid a finding of substantial similarity
• discussing the presumption of irreparable harm and stating that “[t]here is ... no need actually to prove irreparable harm when seeking an injunction against copyright infringement.”
• merger of idea and expression properly considered in the context of infringement rather than copyrightability
• defendant could attempt to show that allegedly infringing statuary was created independently from a non-infringing source
• “An artist can claim to own only an original manner of expressing ideas, not the ideas themselves.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).