HERBERT ROSENTHAL JEWELRY CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward and Lucy KALPAKIAN, etc., Defendants-Appellees, 446 F.2d 738

Summary

Plaintiff alleged that defendants infringed its copyrighted jewel encrusted bee pin. The lower court found that defendants' bee pin was not substantially similar to plaintiff's bees and that they had not infringed the copyright. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court noted the difference between a patent and a copyright was that a copyright conferred no right to the conception reflected in the general subject matter and just protected the expression of the idea, not the idea itself. The court determined that a copyright must not be treated like a patent or it would confer rights over private activity without satisfying the procedural and substantive prerequisites to the grant of such privilege. The court reasoned that defendants were entitled to use the idea of a jeweled bee but were not able to copy plaintiff's expression of that bee. However, the court found that, because the idea of the bee and its jeweled expression were inseparable, copying the expression was not barred.