Comments on: Judge Matz denies motion to dismiss infringement claim: floral design wasn’t a generic copy of natural phenomena http://senlawoffice.com/exclusiverights/2009/02/judge-matz-denies-motion-to-dismiss-infringement-of-floral-patterns-design-elements-werent-generic-copies-of-natural-phenomena/ A copyright law blog covering litigation, policy and academia Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:13:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: CONTENT CLASH - FASHION, ART & COPYRIGHT » Blog Archive » Exclusive Rights Reports on D / B Victory in Motion Practice before Judge Matz [Copyright, Fashion, Apparel, Los Angeles] http://senlawoffice.com/exclusiverights/2009/02/judge-matz-denies-motion-to-dismiss-infringement-of-floral-patterns-design-elements-werent-generic-copies-of-natural-phenomena/comment-page-1/#comment-30328 CONTENT CLASH - FASHION, ART & COPYRIGHT » Blog Archive » Exclusive Rights Reports on D / B Victory in Motion Practice before Judge Matz [Copyright, Fashion, Apparel, Los Angeles] Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:21:09 +0000 http://www.exclusiverights.net/?p=890#comment-30328 [...] http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/02/judge-matz-denies-motion-to-dismiss-infringement-of-floral-pa... [...] [...] http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/02/judge-matz-denies-motion-to-dismiss-infringement-of-floral-pa... [...]

]]> By: aeropolowoman http://senlawoffice.com/exclusiverights/2009/02/judge-matz-denies-motion-to-dismiss-infringement-of-floral-patterns-design-elements-werent-generic-copies-of-natural-phenomena/comment-page-1/#comment-30308 aeropolowoman Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:44:18 +0000 http://www.exclusiverights.net/?p=890#comment-30308 Simply Fashion Stores, Ltd., certainly stretched their defense argument for dismissal in the copyright infringement case brought against them by L.A. Printex Industries, Inc., alleging the floral-type graphic design patterns produced by Printex were not original creations but merely designs derived by elements found in nature, such as flowers and stems. The Printex graphic design clearly suggests flowers, but certainly isn't virtually identical to any flower or plant I would likely find in nature. I think Judge Matz was realistic when he said the floral -type pattern was not a generic copy of a natural phenomena, and furthermore, the unique arrangement of the pattern created by Printex warranted exclusive rights. Simply Fashion Stores, Ltd., certainly stretched their defense argument for dismissal in the copyright infringement case brought against them by L.A. Printex Industries, Inc., alleging the floral-type graphic design patterns produced by Printex were not original creations but merely designs derived by elements found in nature, such as flowers and stems.

The Printex graphic design clearly suggests flowers, but certainly isn’t virtually identical to any flower or plant I would likely find in nature.

I think Judge Matz was realistic when he said the floral -type pattern was not a generic copy of a natural phenomena, and furthermore, the unique arrangement of the pattern created by Printex warranted exclusive rights.

]]>