Wildlife Express Corporation v. Carol Wright Sales, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that dissimilarities in the color and type of plush fur and the animals’ eyes, noses, and ears did not preclude a finding of substantial similarity
• finding that obstructive acts by attorneys in legal proceedings were not criminal predicate acts under RICO and thus do not constitute a civil RICO violation
• explaining that “[a] certificate of registration from the U.S. Register of Copyrights constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of a copyright” and “[a]n owner of a copyright is pro- tected against unauthorized copying”
• explaining that “[a] certificate of registration from the U.S. Register of Copyrights constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of a copyright” and “[a]n owner of a copyright is pro- tected against unauthorized copying”
• explaining that “[a] certificate of registration from the U.S. Register of Copyrights constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of a copyright” and “[a]n owner of a copyright is pro- tected against unauthorized copying”
• finding that differences in color and type of material used “are of minor importance in the overall artistic expression . . . and, consequently, they do not preclude a finding of infringement,” collecting cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).