Covington Rebuts ADF Claim
July 13, 2004
Sipco Publications,
First, Covington did succeed in establishing that its copyright in the Maxwell plaid is valid. The fact that Gary Stein of American Decorative Fabrics LLC (ADF) and their legal representative, Richard S. Mandel, consider Covingtons copyright overreaching is totally irrelevant. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in its April 5 decision concluded that Covingtons claims were not overreaching and that Covingtons Maxwell plaid was not, as Mr. Stein and Mr. Mandel have stated, a common plaid. In short, the Court in no uncertain terms disagreed with ADF and Mr. Stein.
Second, despite the fact that Mr. Stein and Mr. Mandel indicate that ADF intends to appeal the Courts decision, in the three months since the Court issued its opinion, ADF has not done so. Mr. Mandels statement that ADF remains determined to fight this case is simply posturing. Indeed, ADF is not selling the design at issue which, in the end, was Covingtons goal in bringing ADF to court.
To summarize, Mr. Mandels letter states that he disagrees with the valid decision issued by a federal court and speculates about an action ADF may take, but to date has not. Therefore, we question the purpose of his letter.
ADF felt it could copy Covingtons Maxwell pattern with impunity because simple plaids cannot be protected. The fact that the court found otherwise, and that ADF is no longer selling the pattern nor has ADF appealed the courts decision, indicates that they are very aware that once our copyright was found valid, they have no case. Fortunately for them, they had not sold any of this product in the market so that Mr. Mandel is correct that at this point no damages can be awarded. Of course should they start selling the pattern, we obviously can test that theory.
Abby Gilmore
President and CEO
Covington Industries Inc.
First, Covington did succeed in establishing that its copyright in the Maxwell plaid is valid. The fact that Gary Stein of American Decorative Fabrics LLC (ADF) and their legal representative, Richard S. Mandel, consider Covingtons copyright overreaching is totally irrelevant. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in its April 5 decision concluded that Covingtons claims were not overreaching and that Covingtons Maxwell plaid was not, as Mr. Stein and Mr. Mandel have stated, a common plaid. In short, the Court in no uncertain terms disagreed with ADF and Mr. Stein.
Second, despite the fact that Mr. Stein and Mr. Mandel indicate that ADF intends to appeal the Courts decision, in the three months since the Court issued its opinion, ADF has not done so. Mr. Mandels statement that ADF remains determined to fight this case is simply posturing. Indeed, ADF is not selling the design at issue which, in the end, was Covingtons goal in bringing ADF to court.
To summarize, Mr. Mandels letter states that he disagrees with the valid decision issued by a federal court and speculates about an action ADF may take, but to date has not. Therefore, we question the purpose of his letter.
ADF felt it could copy Covingtons Maxwell pattern with impunity because simple plaids cannot be protected. The fact that the court found otherwise, and that ADF is no longer selling the pattern nor has ADF appealed the courts decision, indicates that they are very aware that once our copyright was found valid, they have no case. Fortunately for them, they had not sold any of this product in the market so that Mr. Mandel is correct that at this point no damages can be awarded. Of course should they start selling the pattern, we obviously can test that theory.
Abby Gilmore
President and CEO
Covington Industries Inc.
