P published The Catcher in the Rye in 1951. It was an instant success. To date, it has sold over 35 million copies. Shortly after publishing Catcher, P did what Holden did not do: he removed himself from society. P has not published since 1965 and has never authorized any new narrative involving Holden or any work derivative of Catcher. P has never permitted and has explicitly instructed his lawyers not to allow, adaptations of his works. D wrote 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye (hereinafter “60 Years Later”) under the pen name “John David California.” 60 Years Later tells the story of a 76-year-old Holden Caulfield, referred to as “Mr. C,” in a world that includes Mr. C's 90-year-old author, a “fictionalized Salinger.” The premise is that P has been haunted by his creation and now wishes to bring him back to life in order to kill him. P sued and underscores the extensive similarities between 60 Years Later and Catcher. D responds that 60 Years Later is not, and was never intended to be, a sequel to Catcher. Martha Woodmansee, a professor of English and law at Case Western Reserve University, described 60 Years Later as a “work of meta-commentary” that “pursues critical reflection on P and his masterpiece [Catcher] just as do the articles that literary scholars conventionally write and publish in scholarly journals, but it casts its commentary in an innovative ‘postmodern’ form, specifically, that of a novel.” The court granted P's motion for a preliminary injunction, barring Ds from “manufacturing, publishing, distributing, shipping, advertising, promoting, selling, or otherwise disseminating any copy of [60 Years Later], or any portion thereof, in or to the United States.” The Court concluded that “there is substantial similarity between Catcher and [60 Years Later], as well as between the character Holden Caulfield from Catcher, and the character Mr. C from [60 Years Later], such that it was an unauthorized infringement of Plaintiff's copyright.” The court concluded that D's fair use defense is likely to fail and that therefore P has established a prima facie case of copyright infringement. Under Rule 65, to obtain a preliminary injunction a party must demonstrate: (1) that it will be irreparably harmed if an injunction is not granted, and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor. The District Court presumed irreparable harm without discussion. This appeal resulted.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.