Shelley Aliotti and John Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., a California Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a Pterodactyl stuffed animal's depiction as a mobile hanging from the ceiling was not protectable because Pterodactyl \was a winged creature and thus is appropriate for such treatment\
• noting that a Pterodactyl stuffed animal’s depiction as a mobile hanging from the ceiling was not protectable because Pterodactyl “was a winged creature and thus is appropriate for such treatment”
• finding no substantial similarity given the different personality of the parties’ stuffed dinosaurs
• \Appellants therefore may place no reliance upon any similarity in expression resulting from either the physiognomy of dinosaurs or from the nature of stuffed animals.\
• “Appellants therefore may place no reliance upon any similarity in expression resulting from either the physiognomy of dinosaurs or from the nature of stuffed animals”
• \No copyright protection may be afforded to the idea of producing stuffed dinosaur toys or to elements of expression that necessarily follow from the idea of such dolls.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).