Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books Usa, Inc., a Corporation Dove Audio, Inc., a Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the use of another’s trademark “to capture initial consumer attention, even though no actual sale is finally completed as a result of the confusion, may be still an infringement”
• holding that fair use “permits courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occa- sion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster”
• holding that defendants who wrote a poem titled \Cat NOT in the HAT\ about the O.J. Simpson trial were not parodying Dr. Suess' original work because the stanzas had \no critical bearing on the substance or style of\ the original
• holding that de fendants who wrote a poem titled “Cat NOT in the HAT” about the O.J. Simpson trial were not parodying Dr. Suess’ original work because the stanzas had “no critical bearing on the substance or style of’ the original
• holding that an account of .the O.J. Simpson' murder trial titled The Cat NOT in the Hat! borrowed Dr. Seuss’s trademark and poetic style only “‘to get attention’ or maybe even ‘to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh.’” (citation, omitted)
• holding “analytic dissection is not appropriate when conducting the subjective or ‘intrinsic test’” to determine whether works are substantially similar in copyright infringement cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).