Wagner v. Wilson

District Court, E.D. New York July 15, 1915

Wagner v. Wilson, 225 F. 912 (1915)

1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1330

Opinion of the Court

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

[1, 2] The court has jurisdiction over an' action for infringement of copyright (35 Stat. 1075), and by section 35 this action can be maintained in a district where there is infringement by the principal or his agent. Service on the agent is sufficient.

Whether the present action can be maintained is not to be decided upon the present motion. Motion to dismiss as to jurisdiction over the alleged cause of action is denied.

This is not a “local” suit, and hence the service did not give jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Even in a patent case, the plaintiff cannot have process served in another district in the same state (Judicial Code [Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1100] § 48 [Comp. St. 1913, § 1030]), but must make service of the alleged agent. Service of summons will be set aside.

Reference

Full Case Name: WAGNER v. WILSON
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Copyrights 79—Infringement—Actions—Jurisdiction. An action for infringement of a copyright, under Act March 4, 1909, c. 320, 35 Stat. 1084, may, under section 35 thereof (Comp. St. 1913, § 9556) be maintained in the District Court of the district where there is infringement by the principal or his agent. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Copyrights, Cent. Dig. § 67; Dec. Dig. 79J 2. Copyrights 79—Actions for Infringement—Service of Process. In an action for infringement of copyright, under Act March 4, 1909, brought in the District Court of the district where there is infringement by the principal or his agent, service of summons on the agent is sufficient; but service of summons on defendant in another district in the same state must be set aside. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Copyrights, Cent. Dig. § 67; Dec. Dig. 79.] For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes