Page:Bourne v. Walt Disney (S.D.N.Y. 1992).pdf/3

1976 Action by Bourne Co. against The Walt Disney Co., Buena Vista Home Video, Tower Records Inc., Barnes & Noble Bookstores Inc., Record Explosion Inc., Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., RKO Warner Video Inc., and Does 1 through 100, for copyright infringement. On defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Denied.

Stanton, J.

Bourne Co. (“Bourne”) brought this action alleging that defendants have infringed its copyrights to musical compositions from the movies “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” and “Pinocchio.” Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

Defendants argue that because Bourne renewed its copyrights under the name of a previously dissolved corporation, “Bourne, Inc.,” rather than its true name, “Bourne Co.,” the copyrights are invalid and unenforceable in this action. See International Film Exchange v. Corinth Films, 621 F. Supp. 631, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (Licenseelicensee [sic] could not validly renew copyright).

The Second Circuit has stated, however, that the copyright statute “grants valuable rights to persons who create subject matter which is copyrightable and that useless technicalities are not to be allowed to cut down the benefits conferred.” United States v. Backer, 134 F.2d 533, 536 [57 USPQ 10] (2d. Cir. 1943). In Backer, the court held that because “appellant was not prejudiced,” a mistake in the timing of the copyright application was not enough to invalidate the copyright. Citing Backer, the court in Pantone, Inc. v. A.I. Friedman, 294 F. Supp. 545 [160 USPQ 530] (S.D.N.Y. 1968), declined to invalidate a copyright even though the application was in the name of “Pantone Press, Inc.” rather than its true name, “Pantone, Inc.” See also, [sic] Alart Associates, Inc. v. Aptaker, 279 F. Supp. 268, 270 [156 USPQ 559] (S.D.N.Y. 1968): "[D]efendants do not point to any prejudice suffered by them or the public as a result of plaintiff’s mistake. On the contrary, the name “Alart, Inc.” appears sufficiently close to plaintiff’s full name to identify plaintiff as the copyright owner, so that the public would be aware of the existence of its copyright and not be misled. In the absence of prejudice, an innocent clerical error in the application and certificate of registration, unaccompanied by fraud, does not invalidate the copyright or render it incapable of supporting an infringement action."

In another decision, coincidentally involving The Walt Disney Company and musical compositions from “Snow White,” the court found that the difference between “The Thornton Allen Company,” the name under which the copyright was registered, and “T.W. Allen Company,” the name under which the individual plaintiff had filed the requisite certificate that he was doing business, was “a slight variationvariance [sic] and, [sic] is not material.” Allen v. Walt Disney, 41 F. Supp. 134, 135 [50 USPQ 365] (S.D.N.Y. 1941). See also, [sic] Thomas Wilson & Co. v. Irving J. Dorfman Co., 433 F.2d 409, 412 [167 USPQ 417] (2d. Cir. 1970) (fact that president of corporation, rather than corporation, was named as author on application did not affect validity of copyright because error was made in good faith).

The copyright renewals at issue here were filed under the name “Bourne, Inc.” even though that company had been dissolved and all rights to the musical compositions had passed to Bonnie Bourne, doing business as “Bourne Co.” Defendants, however, have not shown that they were prejudiced by the error, or that the public was in any way misled as to the true owner. Bonnie Bourne, in fact, was the sole owner of both Bourne entities. In the absence of prejudice or fraud, this court will “preserve copyrights rather than invalidate them on the basis of minor defects in registration certificates.” Huk-a-Poo Sportswear, Inc. v. Little Lisa, Ltd., 74 F.R.D. 621, 624 [195 USPQ 763] (S.D.N.Y. 1977).

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is denied.

So ordered.