Knitwaves, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Lollytogs Ltd. (Inc.) D/B/A French Toast, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Feist \makes clear [that] a work may be copyrightable even though it is entirely a compilation of unprotectible [sic] elements\
• noting that this Court may reverse an award of attorneys' fees \if the district court applied the wrong legal standard\ (citations omitted)
• noting that Feist “makes clear [that] a work may be copyrightable even though it is entirely a compilation of unprotectible [sic] elements”
• finding that “lengthy recitation of differences” that required “considerable ink to describe” did “little to lessen a viewer’s overwhelming impression” that two works were substantially similar.
• noting that a court must limit its infringement inquiry to whether “the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially similar”
• noting that defendant’s use of plaintiffs sweaters as models supported finding of willfulness, despite defendant’s contention that its designers intended to copy only those elements of plaintiffs designs that were unprotected

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).