Reader's Digest Association, Inc. v. Conservative Digest, Inc., Reader's Digest Association, Inc. v. Conservative Digest, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that whereas none of the individual elements of the Reader's Digest magazine cover qualifies for copyright protection, \the distinctive arrangement and layout of those elements\ is entitled to protection
• “[S]omething less than ‘bad faith[ ]’ suffices to mark a case as ‘exceptional’ . . . .”
• award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiff requires a finding of willfulness or bad faith
• \... to say that proof of extensive advertising and substantial sales may not be probative of secondary meaning is to defy both logic and common sense.\
• although no element of magazine cover – ordinary lines, typefaces, and colors – is entitled to coyright protection, the distinctive arrangement is entitled to protection as a graphic work
• “None of the individual elements of the Reader’s Digest cover—ordinary lines, typefaces, and colors— qualifies for copyright protection. But the distinctive arrangement and layout of those elements is entitled to protection as a graphic work.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).