LawCite Search |
LawCite Markup Tool |
Help |
Feedback
Law Cite |
Case Name | Citation(s) | Court | Jurisdiction | Date † | Full Text | Citation Index | |
F W Woolworth Co v Contemporary Arts, Inc |
344 US 228; |
United States Supreme Court | United States | 22 Dec 1952 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Woolworth Co v Contemporary Arts | 193 F2d 162 | United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit | United States | 26 Dec 1951 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Alfred Bell & Co v Catalda Fine Arts, Inc |
191 F2d 99; |
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit | United States | 20 Jul 1951 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Stein v Expert Lamp Co |
188 F2d 611; |
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit | United States | 22 May 1951 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() |
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v South Texas Lumber Co |
333 US 496; |
United States Supreme Court | United States | 3 May 1948 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
"Copyright Law," | [1948] Annual Survey of American Law 777 | Annual Survey of American Law | United States | circa 1948 | HeinOnline / Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() |
Merchants National Bank of Boston v Commissioner |
320 US 256; |
United States Supreme Court | United States | 15 Nov 1943 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Morton Salt Co v G S Suppiger Co |
315 US 788; |
United States Supreme Court | United States | 2 Feb 1942 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Textile Mills Securities Corporation v Commissioner |
314 US 326; |
United States Supreme Court | United States | 8 Dec 1941 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Bleistein v Donaldson Lithographing Co |
188 US 239; |
United States Supreme Court | United States | 2 Feb 1903 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co v Sarony |
111 US 53; |
United States Supreme Court | United States | 17 Mar 1884 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Baker v Selden |
101 US 99; |
United States Supreme Court | United States | 1 Oct 1879 | WorldLII |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
342 US 829 |
|
United States Supreme Court | United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
King Features Syndicate v Fleischer |
|
![]() |
|||||
E I Hortman & Aetna Doll Co v Kaufman |
|
![]() |
|||||
261 US 615 |
|
United States Supreme Court | United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Hill v Whalen & Martell, Inc |
|
![]() |
|||||
Ricker v General Electric Co |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() |
||
Stein v Benaderet, D C |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() |
||
Stein v Rosenthal, DC |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() |
||
Stein v Expert Lamp Co , D C |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() |
||
Arnstein v Edward B Marks Music Corporation |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
||
Sheldon v Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
Fleischer Studios, Inc v Ralph A Freundlich, Inc |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
||
"The argument that useful articles purporting to be works of art should be excluded from copyright because they may qualify for a design patent is not convincing " |
|
Harvard Law Review | United States | HeinOnline / LexisNexis |
![]() |
![]() |
|
27 Indiana Law Journal 131 |
|
Indiana Law Journal | United States | HeinOnline / LexisNexis |
![]() |
![]() |
|
27 Indiana Law Journal 130 |
|
Indiana Law Journal | United States | HeinOnline / LexisNexis |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Gerlach-Barklow Co v Morris & Bendien, Inc |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
||
21 George Washington Law Review 359 |
|
George Washington Law Review | United States | HeinOnline / LexisNexis |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Jones Bros Co v Underkoffler, D C |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() |
||
Pellegrini v Allegrini, DC |
|
United States | Westlaw |
![]() |
![]() |