Copyright

• Author: International Law Group
• Pages: 109-112

Page 109

In the late 1950s, Thomas Dam, a Danish wood carver, created a troll doll with an oversized head, big grin, potbelly, and frizzy hair, calling it a "Good Luck Troll." Dam began selling his doll in the United States in 1961. In 1962, Dam founded "Dam Things Establishment (DTE) ," and listed it as the creator of the dolls on his U.S. copyright registration. As some dolls had been sold in the U.S. without the proper copyright notice, the copyright was invalidated in 1962 on the grounds that the dolls had entered the public domain. Many companies then began marketing the dolls in the U.S.

In 1963-64, DTE licensed Uneeda Doll Co., Inc. (UDCI), Defendant's predecessor, to distribute troll dolls. From time to time, UDCI sold a line of troll dolls under the name "Wish-Niks" between 1965 and 1984, and, according to UDCI's chairman, probably as late as 1996. In that year, UDCI sold all of its assets, including its copyrights and other intellectual property rights, to Uneeda (Defendant).

After Thomas Dam died in 1989, his heirs granted Troll Co. (Plaintiff ), a Danish company, the exclusive right to exploit and license the dolls. The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ß 104A, enacted as part of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994), restored the Good Luck Troll copyright on January 1, 1996. After Plaintiff had obtained a registration certificate in 2000, it set about enforcing its restored copyright.

In August 2005, Plaintiff was getting ready for a major re-launch of its troll dolls, when it found out that Defendant was selling newly produced Wish-niks to Wal-Mart bearing copyright notices in Defendant's name. After Plaintiff informed Wal-Mart that the dolls infringed Plaintiff 's copyright, Wal-Mart withdrew the dolls.

After bringing this copyright infringement action against Defendant in a New York federal court on October 7, 2005, Plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendant from manufacturing, distributing, or selling Wish-nik dolls pending resolution of the case. Defendant appealed the preliminary injunction based on its contention that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its infringement claim.

On appeal, Defendant made two supporting arguments. The first was that Plaintiff has not shown that it owns the restored copyright. The second wasPage 110 that Defendant qualifies as a "reliance party" within the meaning of ß 104A of the Copyright Act. This entitled it to...