F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. V. CONTEMPORARY ARTS, INC., 344 U. S. 228 (1952)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 344 U. S. 228
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/344/228/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/344/228/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228 (1952)
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.
No. 42
Argued November 17, 1952
Decided December 22, 1952
344 U.S. 228
Syllabus
Respondent sued petitioner under the Copyright Act to recover for infringement of copyright on a statuette, infringing copies of which had been sold by petitioner in its stores. Petitioner proved that its gross profit from the infringement was $899.16. The evidence of damage suffered by respondent, though indicating real and substantial injury, was insufficient to establish the amount of damage actually sustained. The trial court allowed recovery of $5,000 "statutory damages."
Held: The award of damages in the amount of $5,000 was authorized by 17 U.S.C. § 101(b). Pp. 344 U. S. 229-234.
(a) The fact that petitioner proved that its gross profit from the infringement was $899.16 does not limit recovery to that amount. Pp. 344 U. S. 231-233.
(b) Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U. S. 390, and Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. v. Buck, 283 U. S. 202, distinguished. P. 344 U. S. 234.
(c) The statute empowers the trial court, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, to determine whether, on all the facts, a recovery upon proven profits and damages or one estimated within the statutory limits is more just, and there was no abuse of that discretion in this case. P. 344 U. S. 234.
193 F.2d 162 affirmed.
In an action under the Copyright Act to recover for infringement of copyright, the District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, respondent here. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 193 F.2d 162. This Court granted a limited writ of certiorari. 343 U.S. 963. Affirmed, p. 344 U. S. 234.