context: At trial, the Levy defendants offered no evidence that the plaintiffs acted in a manner which justified a belief on the part of defendants that their copyright was free from challenge. Although in some instances, silence and inaction may induce justifiable reliance on the part of the defendant, those circumstances are not present when the defendant is in a position to ascertain the extent of the competing claim.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 279 F.2d 105, 105
citation_a.parenthetical: acknowledging that such acts of omission rarely satisfy elements of estoppel.
citation_a.sentence: Hampton, 279 F.2d at 105. See also 3 Nimmer, § 13.07 (acknowledging that such acts of omission rarely satisfy elements of estoppel.) In the instant case, not only did Goldner and Levy know of the plaintiffs’ claim to ownership of the Fools copyright and attempt to conceal the accrual of royalties from them, but Levy also, in part, caused the plaintiffs’ silence and inaction.
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 891 F.2d 401, 404
citation_b.parenthetical: "one who seeks Equity's assistance must stand before the court with clean hands"
citation_b.sentence: Cf. Stone II, 891 F.2d 401, 404, (“one who seeks Equity’s assistance must stand before the court with clean hands”) (citation omitted).