Incredible Technologies, Inc. v. Virtual Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Global Vr

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that we look at “whether the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff ’s work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff ’s protectable expres- sion by taking material of substance and value”
• “Copying may be inferred where the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and the accused work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work.” (citations omitted)
• “Copying may be inferred where the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and the accused work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work.” (citations omitted)
• describing video game at issue as “consist[ing] of a 26 software program that projects images and corresponding sounds through a video screen and 27 speakers mounted onto a kiosk-type display cabinet”
• “The test for substantial similarity may itself be expressed in two parts: whether the defendant copied from the plaintiffs work and whether the ‘copying, if proven, went so far as to constitute an improper appropriation.’ ”
• “To prevail on a trade dress claim, [the plaintiff] must establish that its trade dress is nonfunctional, that it has acquired secondary meaning, and that a likelihood of confusion exists” on the part of consumers. (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).