## Facts

- Shapiro & Son Bedspread Corp. manufactured and distributed bedspreads and created a textile design line called “Lace Fantasy” around 1978.
- The design used raised printing with flat print to create an eyelet-like pattern and included a specific lace edging intended to create a lace illusion across the bedspread.
- Shapiro sold “Lace Fantasy” bedspreads for years with a notice reading “Design Copyrighted” printed only on a flyer/insert placed inside heat-sealed plastic packaging.
- Shapiro did not place notice on the bedspread fabric or on a label attached to the bedspread during this initial sales period.
- In May 1983, Shapiro registered the design (Registration No. VA 124-327) and began adding sewn-in labels stating “Copyright by Everwear,” but only for bedspreads not yet shipped.
- By late 1982, competitor Royal Mills Associates began selling bedspreads Shapiro claimed were substantially similar to “Lace Fantasy.”
- Shapiro sued for copyright infringement and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop defendants from producing and selling the allegedly infringing bedspreads.
- The motion was decided on written submissions and oral argument, without an evidentiary hearing, and addressed only preliminary relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Shapiro’s placement of “Design Copyrighted” on a removable packaging insert, rather than on the bedspread or an affixed label, likely failed the statutory notice requirements applicable to the work’s publication history.
2. Whether, given doubts about notice and resulting enforceability, Shapiro satisfied the Second Circuit standard for a preliminary injunction (likelihood of success or serious questions plus a hardship balance, and irreparable harm).

## Decision

- The court denied Shapiro’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found Shapiro did not show a likelihood of success on the merits because the design’s enforceability was in substantial doubt due to defective notice practices during years of commercial distribution.
- Because validity was uncertain, the court declined to apply any presumption of irreparable harm and refused extraordinary preliminary relief.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement must demonstrate likely success on the merits, including a showing that the copyright is valid and enforceable.
- For works subject to statutory notice regimes tied to publication, notice generally must be affixed to the copies of the work (such as on the article itself or an attached label) so it remains visible when the article is encountered.
- A notice placed only on a removable insert inside product packaging is likely insufficient because the notice may not remain with the article and may not provide public warning.
- Publication and distribution of copies without proper notice can result in loss of protection absent a qualifying statutory exception or cure; uncertainty on this point can defeat preliminary relief.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin Royal’s sales at the outset because Shapiro’s long-term practice of using only packaging inserts for notice raised substantial doubt that “Lace Fantasy” remained protected, preventing a showing of likely success and supporting denial of preliminary injunctive relief.


Shapiro & Son Bedspread Corp. v. Royal Mills Assocs., 568 F. Supp. 972 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)