Condotti, Inc. v. Slifka

223 F.Supp. 412 (1963)

CONDOTTI, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph SLIFKA and Sylvia Slifka, doing business as Slifka Fabrics and Nuloom Fabrics and Joseph Samelson, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

October 21, 1963.

Helfat & Helfat, New York City, Bernard A. Helfat, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Arnold R. Krakower, New York City, Isidore A. Seltzer, New York City, of counsel, for defendants.

HERLANDS, District Judge.

This is an application for a temporary injunction by the owner of four copyrighted textile designs (Exhibits "1", "3", "5" and "7"). The defendants sought to be so enjoined are competitors of the plaintiff who are marketing similar textile designs (Exhibits "2", "4", "6" and "8") claimed by plaintiff to be infringing plaintiff's copyrighted designs. In addition, plaintiff claims that defendants have been committing acts of unfair competition.

Certain uncopyrighted fabric designs (Exhibits "9" and "11") owned by plaintiff are also said to have been copied by defendants (as exemplified by Exhibits "10" and "12"); and this alleged copying of plaintiff's uncopyrighted designs is also encompassed within plaintiff's charge of unfair competition.

Plaintiff recognizes that the defendants' designs are not replicas or exact copies of its designs. However, plaintiff contends that in certain material respects — e. g., over-all appearance, aesthetic appeal, structural features, basic pattern, configuration, spatial groupings and arrangements, colors and color combinations — the defendants' designs are copies of the plaintiff's copyrighted and uncopyrighted designs.

Plaintiff's moving papers, including the demonstrative evidence of the plaintiff's and defendants' designs as embodied in the cloth, are an elaboration of the foregoing contention.

This contention is further supported by the affidavits tending to establish that various representatives of the defendants have admitted to the trade that the defendants have copied the plaintiff's designs and that whatever changes were effected by the defendants were of such a nature as to accomplish copying while supplying the defendants with the defense that their designs were different.

Defendants controvert the plaintiff's moving affidavits by submitting detailed denials and explanations in their opposing affidavits and various exhibits.

Defendants have been litigants in prior similar fabric-design lawsuits in this court. Millworth Converting Corporation v. Slifka, 276 F.2d 443 (2d Cir. 1960); Clarion Textile Corp. v. Slifka, 223 F.Supp. 950, 61 Civ. 2258 (S.D.N.Y. 1961); Cortley Fabrics, Inc. v. Slifka, 175 F.Supp. 66 (S.D.N.Y.1959). They and their attorneys are veterans in this arena of copyright warfare. Their papers, their arguments and defendants' designs manifest this experience.

The opposing affidavit of the defendant Joseph Samelson (sworn to September 1, 1963) states inter alia:

"The apparent similarities between the defendants' designs and those of the plaintiff are attributable to the fact that the defendants' designs express design ideas like those expressed in the plaintiff's designs. The only other apparent similarity of the respective designs is that the defendants' designs have similar colors to those used in the plaintiff's designs" (page 3). (Emphasis added.)

"During the latter part of April or early part of May of this year, I had seen some of the plaintiff's goods and liked the ideas shown or suggested by their printed designs. I then participated with artists in the employ of Slifka Fabrics in the selection of design elements, useful as sources for the creation of our own original designs expressing similar ideas" (page 4). (Emphasis added.)

This defendant (Samelson affidavit, p. 4) claims that he "used as the artistic sources for the defendants' designs" a so-called "idea and reference book" by Michael Estrin, entitled "2,000 Designs, Forms and Ornaments" (Defendants' Exhibit "A"). It is further stated (Samelson affidavit, p. 4):

"All of the component design motifs and elements of defendants' respective fabric designs are based upon and derived from similar designs illustrated in that reference book, * * *."

In elaboration of the latter statement, Samelson makes the following specific assertions in his affidavit concerning his use of the reference book, Exhibit "A", in allegedly preparing the four accused designs:

As to Exhibit "2"

This design (charged by plaintiff with infringing Exhibit "1") is denominated by defendants as "Defendants' Oriental or a Chinese Dragon Design". Samelson says that the "dragon depicted in the defendants' design was adapted from the animal shown" on page 124 of Exhibit "A"; that the dragon there depicted is "an imaginary or fictional animal with talon claws and shaggy fur"; and that the defendants' design is an adaptation of that animal rather than of the lion in the plaintiff's design.

As to Exhibit "4"

This design (charged by plaintiff with infringing Exhibit "3") is denominated by the defendants as "Defendants' Crown on Feathers Design". Samelson says that the "sources for this design, which consists essentially of an openwork crown resting on impressionistic foliage" are "the similar openwork crown shown" on page 44 of Exhibit "A"; and that the floral elements of the design were derived from "similar foliage depicted on one of the designs appearing on the cover" of Exhibit "A".

As to Exhibit "6"

This design (charged by plaintiff with infringing Exhibit "5") is denominated by defendants as "Defendants' filigree or lacy type ornaments on a striped background design". Samelson says that "the sources" of its motifs and ornaments are those depicted on pages 65 and 79 of Exhibit "A".

As to Exhibit "8"

This design (charged by plaintiff with infringing Exhibit "7") is denominated by defendants as "Defendants' coat of arms mounted on bowl design". Samelson says that the sources of its coat of arms featuring a lion and a unicorn and its bowl under the coat of arms are corresponding items on pages 44 and 106 of Exhibit "A".

Plaintiff has submitted a detailed analysis demonstrating the many similarities between the plaintiff's and the defendants' designs. Defendants have submitted a detailed analysis demonstrating the many disparities between the plaintiff's and defendants' designs. These analyses are set forth as an appendix to this opinion.

The total record establishes the following facts and conclusions:

1. There are many striking similarities between the plaintiff's and the defendants' designs.

2. There are many significant differences between the parties' designs.

3. Plaintiff's copyrighted designs (Exhibits "1", "3", "5" and "7") are original designs, not previously in the public domain. H. M. Kolbe Co., Inc. v. Armgus Textile Company, Inc., 315 F. 2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1963); Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Dixon Textile Corp., 280 F.2d 800, 802 (2d Cir. 1960); Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Acadia Company, 173 F. Supp. 292 (S.D.N.Y.1959), aff'd Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960); Alfred Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Catalda Fine Arts Inc., 191 F.2d 99, 102-103 (2d Cir. 1951).

4. Because plaintiff's copyrighted designs have not been in the public domain, the test of infringement to be applied herein is that laid down in Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Acadia Company, supra, and not that formulated in Millworth Converting Corp. v. Slifka, 276 F.2d 443, 445 (2d Cir. 1960), where the basic design had been in the public domain.

5. In Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., supra, Judge Hand (274 F.2d at 489) expounded the test here applicable as follows:

"The test for infringement of a copyright is of necessity vague. In the case of verbal ``works' it is well settled that although the ``proprietor's' monopoly extends beyond an exact reproduction of the words, there can be no copyright in the ``ideas' disclosed but only in their ``expression.' Obviously, no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the ``idea,' and has borrowed its ``expression.' Decisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc. In the case of designs, which are addressed to the aesthetic sensibilities of an observer, the test is, if possible, even more intangible. No one disputes that the copyright extends beyond a photographic reproduction of the design, but one cannot say how far an imitator must depart from an undeviating reproduction to escape infringement. In deciding that question one should consider the uses for which the design is intended, especially the scrutiny that observers will give to it as used. In the case at bar we must try to estimate how far its overall appearance will determine its aesthetic appeal when the cloth is made into a garment. Both designs have the same general color, and the arches, scrolls, rows of symbols, etc. on one resemble those on the other though they are not identical. Moreover, the patterns in which these figures are distributed to make up the design as a whole are not identical. However, the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same. That is enough; and indeed, it is all that can be said, unless protection against infringement is to be denied because of variants irrelevant to the purpose for which the design is intended."

6. Defendants' designs are not sufficiently imitative to infringe, under the test laid down by Judge Hand. Obviously there are many striking similarities in structural characteristics, in uses of shadings, stippling, colors and color combinations, and in spatial arrangements and configurations. But equally obvious are the many striking dissimilarities and variations.

Considering the uses for which the designs are intended, the Court is of the opinion that the defendants' designs contain enough variants to give them a different over-all appearance and aesthetic appeal when the cloths are made into garments.

7. Defendants sedulously borrowed each of plaintiff's "ideas". Defendants then proceeded to make substantial deviations from plaintiff's "expression" of those ideas by cross-breeding plaintiff's expressions with those found in the design form-book (Exhibit "A"). As a result, defendants' designs are aesthetic mutations, reflecting major changes and significant alterations that keep clear of plaintiff's "expression".

8. In view of the preceding finding, the present case is governed by the principle that there is no copyright infringement when only the ideas are copied. See Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630; Millworth Converting Corporation v. Slifka, 276 F.2d 443, 445, 446 (2d Cir. 1960); Clarion Textile Corp. v. Slifka et al., 223 F.Supp. 950, 61 Civ. 2258 (S.D.N.Y. 1961).

This is not a case where the copyists infringed the plaintiff's "expression" of its ideas, as in Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Acadia Company, supra; Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Candy Frocks, Inc., 187 F. Supp. 334, 336 (S.D.N.Y.1960).

9. Plaintiff has failed to establish its charge of unfair competition, in fact and in law. There is no evidence that a secondary meaning has attached to plaintiff's merchandise or designs; nor is there any evidence that defendants have palmed off their goods or designs as plaintiff's or that any customers have been deceived or confused as to the source or origin of any of the goods purchased by them. Miss Susan, Inc. v. Enterprise & Century Undergarment Co., 270 App.Div. 747, 62 N.Y.S.2d 250 (1946); Oleg Cassini, Inc. v. Dorene Fashions Corp., Sup., 155 N.Y. S.2d 64, rev'd on other grounds, 3 A.D.2d 706, 159 N.Y.S.2d 664 (1957), aff'd 4 N.Y.2d 826, 173 N.Y.S.2d 621, 149 N.E.2d 899 (1958); Varsity Sportswear Inc. v. Princess Fabrics Co., 174 Misc. 298, 19 N.Y.S.2d 723 (1940); Samuel Winston Inc. v. Charles James Services, Inc., S. 159 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1956).

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, this case is controlled by desiderata of optics and aesthetics and not ethics.

The findings and conclusions required by F.R.Civ.P., rule 52(a), are contained in this opinion.

The plaintiff's motion is denied. Settle order on notice within five days, in accordance with F.R.Civ.P., rule 65(d).

APPENDIX
COMPARISON SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF
COPYRIGHT NO. K-66801
PATTERN 1546 (LION DESIGN)
COMPARISON OF EXHIBITS "1" AND "2"
EXHIBIT "1"                EXHIBIT "2"
CENTRAL FIGURE        Lion Rampant                 Lion Rampant or
similar animal
TAIL                  Long and recurved            Long and recurved
knob at end                  knob at end
TONGUE                Protruding                   Protruding
HINDLEGS              Firmly planted, left         Firmly planted, left
leg advanced                 leg advanced
FORE LEGS             Raised and separated         Raised and separated
BACK                  Recurved                     Recurved
MARKINGS              Stippled effect, for         Stippled effect, for
three - dimensional          three - dimensional
effect, on chest,            effect, on chest,
along back, tail             along back, tail
and legs, most apparent      and most apparent
on light                     on light colored
colored areas.               areas. Contrasting
Contrasting color            color on
on chest, along              chest, along legs,
legs, top of head,           top of head, eyes
eyes and tongue.             and tongue. Outline
Outline and markings         and markings
in darker                    in darker shade of
shade of body color.         body color.
SIZE                      4¾" × 3¼"               5" × 4½"
BACKGROUND           Solid Color                   Solid Color
ALIGNMENT OF         Figures in alternate          Figures in alternate
FIGURES              rows inverted.                rows inverted.
Lions spaced precisely        Lions spaced precisely
opposite vacant               opposite vacant
space in adjacent             space in adjacent
rows.                         rows.
VERTICAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN
FIGURES                   2¾"                      3"

HORIZONTAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN FIGURES
IN ALTERNATE
ROWS                 5 5/8 "                  5 5/8 "
COLOR                 3 colors plus background   3 colors plus background
color                      color

COPYRIGHT NO. K-66802
COMPARISON OF EXHIBITS "3" AND "4"
PATTERN 1572 (CROWN AND FOLIAGE DESIGN)
EXHIBIT "3"             EXHIBIT "4"
CENTRAL FIGURE        Foliage and Crown          Foliage and Crown
RELATIVE POSITIONS    Foliage appears to         Foliage appears to
be growing out of          be growing out of
base of crown.             base of crown.
(This is a highly
original combination)
RELATIVE SIZE         Foliage is higher          Foliage is higher
and wider than             and wider than
crown.                     crown.
SYMMETRY              Foliage and crown          Foliage and crown
are both symmetrical       are both symmetrical
on vertical axis.          on vertical axis.
MARKING               Crowns and foliage         Crowns and foliage
are divided on vertical     are divided on vertical
axis by contrasting         axis by contrasting
colors. Pearls              colors. Pearls
crown.                      or beads on top of
crown.
Stippled effect on         Stippled effect on
right side of figure       right side of figure
when viewed with           when viewed with
crown above foliage.       crown above foliage.
BACKGROUND            Solid color where          Solid color where
black, two air-brush       black, two air-brush
ombre stripes on           ombre stripes on
dyed ground in other       dyed ground in other
colors.                    colors.
ALIGNMENT OF          Figures in alternate        Figures in alternate
FIGURES             rows inverted.              rows inverted.
Crown and foliage          Crown and foliage
spaced precisely opposite  spaced precisely opposite
vacant spaces              vacant spaces
in adjacent rows.          in adjacent rows.
VERTICAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN FIGURES           2½"                        2¾"

HORIZONTAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN FIGURES
IN ALTERNATE
ROWS                4 5/8 "                      5 1/8 "
COLOR                 On striped backgrounds     On striped backgrounds
grounds 5 colors or        5 colors or
rollers plus background    rollers plus background
ground color. Pigment      color. Pigment
overprinting               overprinting
used to print light        used to print light
colors on darker colors.   colors on darker colors.
On black backgrounds       On backgrounds
3 colors plus              3 colors plus background
background color.          color.

COPYRIGHT NO. K-66811
COMPARISON OF EXHIBITS "5" AND "6"
PATTERN 1544 (LOCK AND KEY DESIGN)
EXHIBIT "5"                    EXHIBIT "6"
CENTRAL FIGURE        Highly decorated             Highly decorated
keyhole plate with           keyhole plate with
hole in center and           hole in center and
key.                         key.
RELATIVE POSITIONS    Key is vertical parallel     Key is vertical parallel
and adjacent to              and adjacent to
lock.                        lock.
RELATIVE SIZE         Area of lock is about        Area of lock is about
twice that of key.           twice that of key.
MARKING               Contrast is given to         Contrast is given to
figures by background        figures by background
stripes cutting              stripes cutting
through them,                through them,
and lock and key are         and lock and key are
each divided vertically      each divided vertically
by color.                    by color.
SIZE                     4" × 3¼"                    4" × 4"
BACKGROUND            Repeated stripes of          Repeated stripes of
three different colors.      three different colors.
(Two colors on
dyed ground.)                Stripes all approximately
Stripes all approximately    two inches in
two inches in                width.
width.
COVER ROLLER          Whole design is covered      Whole design is covered
by thin black                by thin black
lined effect with random     lined effect with random
thickening of                thickening of
lines running in             lines running in
same direction as            same direction as
wide stripes.                wide stripes.

ALIGNMENT OF           Figures in alternate       Figures in alternate
FIGURES              rows inverted.             rows inverted.
Lock and key spaced        Lock and key spaced
precisely opposite         precisely opposite
vacant spaces in adjacent  vacant spaces in adjacent
rows. Although             rows. Although
design is inverted,        design is inverted,
key always                 key always
remains on same            remains on same
side of lock. (Not a       side of lock.
true two-way pattern)
VERTICAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN FIGURES             3 5/8 "                     3¾"
VERTICAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN SAME
POINT IN DESIGNS IN
SAME ROW                    7¾"                      7¾"
HORIZONTAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN FIGURES
IN ALTERNATE
ROWS                           4"                       3½"
HORIZONTAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN SAME
POINT IN DESIGN IN
ALTERNATE ROWS               7¼"                     7½"
COLOR                     5 colors on dyed          5 colors on dyed
ground.                   ground.
Lock and Key shading      Lock and Key shading
contrasts with            contrasts with
striped background.       striped background.

Defendants' Exhibit "B" contains samples of Exhibit 6 printed on light backgrounds. All other samples of Exhibits 5 and 6 are printed on dark backgrounds as called for by the season in which they were offered for sale. Any change from a dark background to a light background is quite obvious. It is equally noticeable between two pieces of defendants' own textile on different backgrounds as it is between plaintiff's design on a dark background and defendants' on a light background. The fact that a copy will not be confused with the original if they are printed in contrasting colors does not, however, excuse infringement. In the case at bar, defendants actually offered the infringing design for sale in the same colors as those used by plaintiff, and there was confusion. The light grounds were obviously an afterthought and may never have been sold in commercial quantities. Infringement occurs when a design is copied from the copyright, regardless of the colors in which it is printed, even though, as a practical matter, the copyright owner may suffer pecuniary damage only when the copy is sold in similar colors to its own. There would have been no incentive for defendants to copy the copyright if they were not using plaintiff's color combinations.

COPYRIGHT NO. K-67154
COMPARISON OF EXHIBITS "7" AND "8"
PATTERN Y-1605 (COAT OF ARMS DESIGN)
EXHIBIT "7"               EXHIBIT "8"
CENTRAL FIGURE         Conventional Coat of      Conventional Coat of
Arms.                     Arms.
ANIMALS                Two animals flank         Two animals flank
figure and third sits     figure and third sits
on crest.                 on crest.
CROWN                  Centered at top of        Centered at top of
figure.                   figure.
SHIELD                 Quartered, at center      Quartered, at center
of figure.                of figure.
MARKINGS               Darker, stippled,         Darker, stippled,
shading on crest —        shading on crest —
right side of crown,      right side of crown,
right animal, left        right animal, left
half of shield and        half of shield and
right side of base.       right side of base.
All animals have          All animals have
shaded outline.           shaded outline.
SIZE                     4 3/8 " × 5¼"           4½" × 5 7/8 "
BACKGROUND             Solid color — Lighter     Solid color — Lighter
shade of same color       shade of same color
as figure.                as figure.
ALIGNMENT OF           All figures face same     All figures face same
FIGURES              way (one way pattern)     way.
Alternate rows
Alternate rows            spaced, so that figures
spaced, so that figures   appear precisely
appear precisely          opposite vacant
opposite vacant           spaces in adjacent
spaces in adjacent        rows.
rows.
VERTICAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN FIGURES                3"                     3"
VERTICAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN SAME
POINT IN DESIGNS IN
SAME ROW                     8½"                 8 7/8 "
HORIZONTAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN FIGURES
IN ALTERNATE
ROWS                         4½"                 5 1/8 "
HORIZONTAL INTERVAL
BETWEEN SAME
POINT IN DESIGN IN
ALTERNATE ROWS               9 1/8 "                 9 5/8 "

It should be noted that these are "one-way" designs, to wit, all the figures face the same way. "One-way" designs are more expensive for the garment manufacturer to use and it is noteworthy that defendants have not only followed the details of plaintiff's design but also copied their use in a "one-way" design.

COMPARISON SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS
I
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PLAINTIFF'S LION DESIGN
AND DEFENDANTS' DRAGON DESIGN
Plaintiff's Lion Design                  Defendants' Design
# 1546 — Exhibit 1                       Exhibit 2
Depicts a realistic lion with         Depicts a fanciful four-footed animal
straight forelegs                     similar to a chinese drag-on-type
figure — with bent forelegs
Lion is astride a spear or shaft      No shaft or spear depicted
Lion appears to have a full mane      Animal on defendants' design has
and bulky chest and neck              small neck, chest and shoulders
and has no mane
Lion appears to be short-haired       Defendants' animal has fleecy,
and smooth-furred                     shaggy, and irregular long
haired fur
Eyes only suggested in outline        Clearly defined eyes
Lion's colorings are shaded and       Coloring of defendants' animal is
outlined in three dimensional         flat without effect of dimension
effect                                or depth
Natural life-like tail                Tail has spears and tip of tail
spreads into five pants
Underbody of chest, belly and         Thin contrasting streaky coloring
hind quarters have broad-strippled    on neck, chest and on forelegs;
colorings                             no contrasting coloring on
underbody
Lion's form is in unbroken regular    Outline of defendants' animal is
curved lines                          irregular, jagged, and spike-like
Lion's mouth is open with indication  Defendants' animal does not show
of teeth and projecting               open mouth and has long tongue
tongue in light color                 in same color as body of animal
Colorings of lion are deep and        Colorings are flat and light with
shaded with three dimensional         overall flat effect
effect

II
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PLAINTIFF'S CROWN ON
FOLIAGE DESIGN AND DEFENDANTS' CROWN ON
FOLIAGE DESIGN
Plaintiff's Design                  Defendants' Design
# 1572 — Exhibit 3                      Exhibit 4
High pointed crown — height           Low rounded crown — width greater
greater than width                       than height of crown
Narrow open-work head band            Wide solid head band
Crown comprises four upright          Crown comprises seven closely-spaced
members enclosing a hemisphere        upright members — no
section of a globe                    globe or other object depicted
within crown
Crown imposed on closely-spaced       Crown imposed on a bow and
fanciful impressionistic foliage      spread out leafy stems in a
semi-circle around the crown;
crown and spreading stems rest
on spread out, well defined
scroll-like figure and on realistic
leafy stems
Colorings are shaded with three       Colorings are bright unshaded
dimensional effect                    with flat effect

III
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PLAINTIFF'S LOCK AND
KEY DESIGN AND DEFENDANTS' FILIGREE
ORNAMENT DESIGN
Plaintiff's Design                         Defendants' Design
# 1544 — Exhibit 5                          Exhibit 6
There are two principal design               There are three principal design
figures, i. e., a conventional key         figures, i. e.:
with scroll-like key handle and            (1) an approximately diamond-shaped
an ornamental scroll work key-hole             wavy outlined Slavonic
cover surmounted by a                          ornament with round hole in
crown                                          center
(2) a scroll-like pointed figure,
and
(3) a scroll-like elongated ornamental
figure (like the figure
in 2 above) with the addition
of an ornamental cross figure
There is no crown on defendants'
Slavonic ornament in (1) above.
Colorings and outlines of design             Colorings and outlines of figures
figures are deep and shaded in               are substantially uniform in application
application, giving effect of dimension      without shadings and
and depth                                    with over-all flat effect

IV
PLAINTIFF'S COAT OF ARMS DESIGN AND DEFENDANTS'
COAT OF ARMS DESIGN
Plaintiff's Design                       Defendant's Design
# 1605 — Exhibit 7                      Exhibit 8
A royal coat of arms comprised of        A royal coat of arms comprised of
two crowned standing lions               standing unicorn and a crowned
astride a shield surmounted by           lion astride a shield surmounted
a crown, 2 leafs, and crowned            by a open-work crown and
small lion figure                        winged fanciful animal
Coat of arms rests on two spreading      Coat of arms rests on two scrolls
leaves and banner with leg-end           and a grecian-type bowl. There
"PAX QUAERITUR BELLO"                    is no legend or motto below defendants'
coat of arms figure
Lions are shown in full face pose        Unicorn and lion shown in side-view
profile pose
Heraldic shield is in conventional       Heraldic shield is in flattened oval
shield form and shape                  shape
Heraldic shield has large diamond,       Heraldic shield has small diamond
large fleur de lis, a harp and           and triangles in three sections
two smaller shields, one in center       and a small fleur de lis in lower
of heraldic shield and the               left section of the shield
other in lower right corner of
heraldic shield
Colorings and outlines of figures        Colorings and outlines are substantially
are shaded with effect of dimension      uniform with over-all
and depth                                flat effect