Edmund A. Rachel, AKA Peter Rachel, D/B/A Wildlife Interiors, Plaintiff v. Banana Republic, Inc., Fisher Development, Inc., and the Gap, Inc.

Caution
831 F.2d 1503·4 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1877·9 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 612·1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14816
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 9, 198786-1901, 86-2764California2,859 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Scannlain, J.

Peter Rachel, a producer of realistic reproductions of jungle animals, brought this action against Banana Republic, Fisher Development, and The Gap for alleged trade dress and copyright infringement. The district court granted summary judgment against Rachel on his copyright claim, and, following Rachel’s submission of evidence, directed a verdict against him on the trade dress claim. The court also dismissed The Gap and assessed sanctions against Rachel’s counsel for improperly naming The Gap as a party. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and its directed verdict. We reverse the imposition of sanctions.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Rachel, doing business as Wildlife Interiors, produces and sells synthetic animal heads as display pieces for commercial establishments. Banana Republic operates a chain of stores that sells safari clothing and accessories. Fisher Development is a general contractor that designs and constructs the African safari environment of Banana Republic stores. Banana Republic is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Gap.

Rachel sold his first synthetic animal head at a flea market in 1983. It carried no copyright notice. That same year Rachel…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.