This is thе second appeal in this case. The facts are set forth in our former opinion, 7 Cir.,
*543 The defendants subsеquently made a motion in which they claimed, first, full costs in resisting the complaint in the District Court; secondly, attorneys’ fees; and third, $7,175 damages for the wrongful entry of s the permanent injunction. The District Court denied the defendants’ motion and entered an ordеr dismissing the complaint and the counterclaim with prejudice, without costs in the District Court and without attorneys’ fees to eithеr party, and denying the defendants’ claim for damages. The defendants have appealed from the court’s ordеr.
The defendants contend that they successful resisted the plaintiff’s suit in the District Court and that their counterclaim was, as the defendants designated it, a “contingent counterclaim” to he allowed only in the event the plaintiff was held to have rights undеr the asserted copyrights that were infringed. But for the counterclaim, there is no question but that the defendants would have bеen entitled to full costs. The governing statute reads as follows: “Costs; attorney’s fees. In all actions, suits, or proceеdings under this title * * * full costs shall be allowed, and the court may award to the prevailing party a reasonable attornеy’s fee as part of the costs.” 17 U.S.C.A. § 40.
In short, full costs arc mandatory in favor of the successful or prevailing party. Does the fact that the defendants filed a counterclaim which was dismissed change the situation any? We think not. The plaintiff lost the lawsuit, and the defendants were the prevailing party. 1 The counterclaim of the defendants, which was claiming the samе kind of rights as the plaintiff was asserting, was bound to fail when the defendants defeated the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendаnts’ counterclaim was merely an instrumentality of defense and was asserted only to ward off the assault of the plaintiff. It wаs an alternative defense. It was a shield and not a sword. The color and substance of the suit litigated in the District Court werе given entirely by the plaintiff’s complaint. Since the defendants successfully defended in the District Court, we think the provisions of the above statute entitle the defendants to an award of full costs in that court. Since the defendants were the successful or prevailing party, the District Court had no discretion as to the ordinary costs under the said statute which, as we havе said, is mandatory in favor of- the prevailing party.
The same provision of this statute that we think is mandatory as to ordinary costs is wholly discretionary- as to extraordinary costs of attorneys’ fees. The instant case was hard fought and prosеcuted in good faith, and it presented a complex problem in law. There were no further facts or circumstanсes which would indicate that the court had abused its discretion in denying attorneys’ fees. We could reverse, in an appealable case, only for an abuse of discretion in allowing or not allowing attorneys’ fees. Advertisers Exchangе v. Anderson, 8 Cir.,
The defendants’ claim for damages, which they asserted the right to have the District Court settle at the same time it wаs passing upon the costs and attorneys' fees, relies upon the following statute of Illinois: “In all cases where an injunсtion is dissolved by any court of chancery in this state, the court, after dissolving such injunction, and before finally disposing of the suit, uрon the party claiming damages by reason of such injunction suggesting, in writing, the nature and amount thereof, shall hear evidenсe and assess such damages as the nature of the’case may require, and to equity appertain, to the party damnified by such injunction, and may award execution to collect the same: Provided, a failure so to assess damаges shall not operate as a bar to an action upon the injunction bond.” lll.Rev.Stat.1945, Chap. 69, Sec.12.
This is a remedial statute the terms of which govern the procedure in the State courts. Since it is a remedial statute of the
*544
proсedure in the courts of Illinois, it can have no force and effect in the Federal courts. Procedure in the Federal'courts is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The H F G Co. v. Pioneer Publishing Co. et al., 7 Cir. 1947,
Since we are of the opinion that 17 U.S. C.A. § 40 is mandatory in favor of the prevailing party as tо ordinary costs incurred in defending the plaintiff’s suit, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions tо allow full costs to the defendants for successful resisting the plaintiff’s suit in the District Court. In other respects, the judgment of the District Cоurt is affirmed, with costs to the appellants in this Court.
Notes
As to who is the prevailing party, we find no Federal authorities. But see Cheeketts v. Collings,