On Davis v. The Gap, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that second factor favored plaintiff because copyrighted work was “in the nature of an artistic creation”
• recognizing that reasonable royalty damages may be awarded even if the infringement proves unprofitable
• recognizing that reasonable royalty damages may be awarded even if the infringement proves unprofitable
• holding that defendant’s infringement was not de minimis because the infringing item was “highly noticeable” and appeared “at the center” of the advertisement
• concluding that fourth factor favored copyright owner' where defendants’ taking caused both loss of royalty revenue and “diminution of [owner’s] opportunity to license to others who might regard [owner’s] design as preempted by [defendant’s] ad”
• recommending that the term “actual damages . . . be broadly construed to favor victims of infringement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).