Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Assn.
Headline: Court upheld refusal to block a competitor’s business directory, denying an injunction despite some copied entries and leaving damage claims to a trial at law affecting directory publishers.
Holding: The Court affirmed the denial of an injunction, holding that the copying was insubstantial compared with extensive independent compilation and that the copyright owner must seek damages in a law action.
- Limits blocking court orders when independent compilation predominates.
- Requires copyright owners to seek monetary damages rather than immediate injunctions.
- Allows competing directories to continue use when copying is minimal.
Summary
Background
The dispute was between two publishers of business reference books. One sold subscriptions to a copyrighted nationwide mercantile directory listing merchants, credit ratings, and business details. The other published a similar directory limited to the lumber trades. The first publisher sued, saying the lumber directory copied its copyrighted material and asked a court to stop the competing book and to account for profits.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the rival’s use of the first publisher’s book was a substantial copyright theft that justified a court order blocking its use. Lower courts found evidence that the rival occasionally used the first book for comparison, but that it mostly gathered information independently through an extensive, costly system of reports, clippings, agents, and mail. The courts held that only a small portion of the material was taken and that the rival’s directory included many more names and kinds of information. Given those facts, the judges concluded a blocking order would be an unfair use of equitable power and that the copyright owner should seek money damages in a regular trial instead.
Real world impact
The ruling means a publisher cannot automatically get a court order to stop a competitor when most of the competitor’s directory is based on independent reporting and only a small fraction appears copied. Instead, injured publishers are directed to pursue monetary compensation in court. This preserves extensive competing directories while allowing legal claims for damages to proceed.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?