Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Well-Made Toy Manufacturing Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.3d 119 · 1994
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Tom Doherty Associates, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc. (1995), Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd. (1995)
29 federal appellate · 8 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp. · Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp. · Citibank Na v. Citytrust · Paddington Corporation v. Attiki Importers & Distributors Inc · Ideal Toy Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plaintiff must show that the defendant appropriated the plaintiffs particular means of expressing an idea, not merely that he expressed the same idea. The means of expression are the ‘artistic’ aspects of a work; the ‘mechanical’ or ‘utilitarian’ features are not proteetible____ We focus on whether an ordinary lay observer would overlook the dissimilarities between the artistic (proteetible) aspects of the two works and would conclude that one was copied from the other. Where, as here, we compare products that have both proteetible and unproteetible elements, we must exclude comparison of the unprotecti-ble elements from our application of the ordinary observer test.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We focus on whether an ordinary lay observer would overlook the dissimilarities between the artistic (protectible) aspects of the two works and would conclude that one was copied from the other. See Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer California, 937 F.2d 759, 765 (2d Cir.1991). Where, as here, we compare products that have both protectible and unproteetible elements, we must exclude comparison of the unprotecti-ble elements from our application of the ordinary observer test. See Laureyssens, 964 F.2d at 141 (referring to this as “the more discerning ordinary observer test”).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the defendant has actually copied the plaintiffs work; and (2) the copying is illegal because a substantial similarity exists between the defendant’s work and the protectible elements of plaintiffs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.