Title Year Categories Outcome Summary of Reasoning Image of LogoCases & Authorities Cited in Letter Ruling

Tommy Hilfiger Flag

2019 Common shapes/symbols/designs, Originality, Two-dimensional artwork, Labels and logos, Originality

Refusal Affirmed Logo is large rectangle divided into two equally sized blue rectangles and two equally sized red and white rectangles. Aarrangement of four rectangles to create a larger rectangle, even if one among many possibilities, is not sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection. Simplistic arrangement of non-protectable elements is insufficient. Applicant’s argument that logo is a creative combination of letters T, J, and H of nautical flag alphabet was unpersuasive.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(g), 202.10(a)U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES (3rd Ed. 2017) §§ 310.3, 310.5, 313.4(B) and (J), 602.4(C), 905, 906.1

Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 888 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir. 1989)Coach Inc. v. Peters , 386 F. Supp. 2d 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)Feist Pub'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. , 499 U.S. 340 (1991)Homer Laughlin China Co. v. Oman , No. 90 Civ. 3160, 1991 WL 154540 (D.D.C. 1991)Prince Group, Inc. v. MTS Prod ., 967 F. Supp. 121, 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)Runstadler Studios, Inc. v. MCM LP , 768 F. Supp. 1292 (N.D. Ill 1991)Satava v. Lowry , 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003)

American Airlines

2018 Common shapes/symbols/designs, Originality, Two-dimensional artwork, Labels and logos

Refusal Reversed Higher resolution image provided by Applicant made creative elements more apparent. Higher resolution design illustrates creative choice in shading of combination of various familiar, but slightly adjusted shapes. Aircraft tail element is oriented on an angle (rather than the parallel orientation of a trapezoid or rectangle), and curved. Bird-head element hovers just below center of aircraft tail element. Shading heightens illusion of depth causing bird-head element to appear to be above and separated from aircraft tail.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(c)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), §§ 310.1, 310.2, 310.7, 310.10, 906.1

Atari Coach Feist Prince GroupSatava

ACCUGRID Disposable Specimen Radiography System with Localizing Grid

2018 Idea/expression dichotomy; Two-dimensional artwork; Originality; Labels and logos; Text

Refusal Reversed in Part

Logo and text granted registration, but not grid. Text provided instructions for using specimen radiography system, but not system itself. Logo -- all caps ACCUGRID in a bullseye that provided 3-dimensional appearance -- showed sufficient creativity under Feist. Grid, however, clearly was part of system itself, and was not copyrightable.

17 U.S.C. § 102(b)COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 313.3(A), 716

Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 102-04 (1879)CCC Info Servs., Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Reports, Inc. , 44F.3d 61, 68 (2d Cir. 1994)Feist

Periscope Logo with Circle

2018 Common shapes/symbols/designs; Two-dimensional artwork; Labels and logos; Originality

Refusal Affirmed Inverted teardrop, white circle, smaller red circle, and white semi-circular shape "are standard geometric shapes and color variations". Twitter's logo is "mere variation of a standard mappointer vector". Evocation of an eyeball "does not amount to materially more than the layering of one uncopyrightable geometric shape upon another." Decision to register "similar" work has noprecedential value.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(g), 202.10(a) COMPENDIUM (THIRD), §§ 309.3, 310.8, 313.4(J), 906.1

AtaraiCoachFeistHomer Laughlin China Co. v. Oman , No. 90-3160, 1991 WL 154540 (D.D.C.July 30, 1991)Satava

Frigidaire Stylized Logo

2018 Common shapes/symbols/designs; Two-dimensional artwork; Labels and logos; Originality; Text; Typography; Words and short phrases

Refusal Affirmed Words, short phrases, and “mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring” are ineligible for copyright protection. Though applicant contends creative authorship in stylized “A,” merely trivial variations are insufficient. Even if stylized "A" represents design choice, the Board does not consider a work's "meaning or symbolism", just its appearance.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(c)COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 310.1, 310.2, 310.7, 310.10, 906.1

AtariBleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903)CoachFeistSatava

Hansel 2018 Common shapes/symbols/designs; Two-dimensional artwork; Labels and logos; Originality

Refusal Affirmed Logo consists of two calligraphic, crescent-shaped lines, which "are not copyrightable because they are merely variations of geometric shapes." Simple arrangement of two unprotectable shapes does not constitute copyright authorship. Despite accepting Hansel's claim that the logo DOES NOT depict a stylized letter "H", which had been a focus of earlier correspondence between applicant and Board, Board affirmed refusal to register.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(g), 202.10(a)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), § 906.1

AtariCoachFeistJohn Muller & Co., Inc. v. N.Y. Arrows Soccer Team, Inc., 802 F.2d 989, 990 (8th Cir. 1986)Satava

Instructions: visit Copyright Office letter rulings at

https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/

Click "Deselect all", then click on "Labels and logos"

Meatball (Energy Burst)

2018 Common shapes/symbols/designs; Two-dimensional artwork; Labels and logos; Originality

Refusal Affirmed Logo met first prong of originality test (independent creation), but failed second prong of sufficient creativity because logo "consists of minor variations on geometric shapes arranged in a predictable manner". Board rejected argument that white zig-zag line within circle was original because of varying distance and spacing between sections, as well as rough border of line, because such elements were trivial or minor variations of otherwise unprotectable line. Board also reasoned that combination of zig-zag line within circle was a "predicable" combination of unprotectable designs that did not "feature the necessary variety andcomposition of elements to qualify for registration."

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(c)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), §§ 313.4(B), 313.4(J), 906.1

AtariFeistSatava

Vodafone Speechmark

2018 Common shapes/symbols/designs; Two-dimensional artwork; Labels and logos; Originality

Refusal Affirmed Work is a useful article lacking authorship and creativity. It depicts single quotation mark – not reversed apostrophe, as applicant claims - which is familiar and not registrable; and that is within a circle within a square, common geometric shapes. Red and white to distinguish shapes is “trivial use of color”. All shapes are centered and “not placed in unusual or unexpected manner.”

37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(c), 202.5(g), 906.117 U.S.C. § 102(a) AtariCoach, Inc.FeistSatava

The UEFA Champions League Starball Device

2018 Common shapes/symbols/designs; Two-dimensional artwork; Labels and logos; Originality

Refusal Affirmed Black stars and negative space placed in circular space not original. Board rejected argument that forms and shapes in the design are not standard, but instead altered to create illusion of a ball. Board stated they were standard stars and polygons, as defined in dictionaries. UEFA argued Work was made of 19 elements and thus more complex; Board countered that arrangement of elements must be original regardless of number. UEFA listed registrations inconsistent with Office's decision. Board stated that UEFA design did not include “additional color variations or derivative authorship,” as did works cited by UEFA. UEFA argued that Work’s illusion of a ball shows creativity. Board asserts that “symbolic meaning or impression that a work conveys” is irrelevant in assessing creativity.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a) 37 C.F.R. §§ 202. l(a), 202.10(a)COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 310.3, 310.5, 905, 906.1

AtariCoach, Inc.Feist SatavaKay Berry, Inc. v. Taylor Gifts, Inc ., 421 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2005)Hoberman Designs, Inc. v. Gloworks Imports., Inc. 2015 WL 10015261, No. 14-CV-6743 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015)Games Workshop Ltd. v. Chapterhouse Studios, LLC , 2012 WL 5949105, 10-C-8103 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2012)Theotokatos v. Sara Lee Personal Prods ., 971 F. Supp. 332 (N.D. Ill. 1997)Runstadler Studios, Inc. v. MCM LP, 768 F. Supp. 1292 (N.D. Ill 1991)

Merriam Webster Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary

LIV Logo 2018 Originality, Two-dimensional artwork, Labels and Logos, Text, Typography, Words and short phrases

Refusal Affirmed Insufficiently creative. Stylized letters are trivial variations on a basic building block of expression. Other publicly available typefaces use same style. Artistry in lettering is not sufficiently creative. Applicant cannot extend copyright to “miniscule variations of familiar symbols” or that would put “weapon of harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers…”

17 U.S.C. § 102(a) 37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.1(e), 202.5 COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 906.1, 906.4

Atari Bleistein v. Donaldson , 188 U.S. 239 (1903)CMM Cable Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc. , 97 F.3d 1504, 1519 (1st Cir. 1996) Coach, Inc. Darden v. Peters , 488 F.3d 277, 282, 287 (4th Cir. 2007)EltraFeist John Muller & Co, Inc. L. Batlin & Sons Inc., v. Synder , 536 F.2d 486, 492 (2d Cir.1976)Satava

UAC Triangle Design

2018 Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos, Originality, Two-dimensional artwork, Typography

Refusal Affirmed Simplistic arrangement of non-protectable elements is insufficient. Work lacked sufficient originality. It is a "combination of basic geometric shapes". They are "not arranged in a way that creates a new, unfamiliar shape." It is "reasonable to interpret the Work as either a triangle or a stylized letter 'A.'"

37 C.F.R. §§ 202. 1(a), 202.5(g)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), §§ 905, 906.1

AtariBleisteinCoach, Inc.Feist John Muller & Co.SatavaTompkins Graphics, Inc. v. Zipatone, Inc. , No. 82-5438, 1983 WL 398, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 1983)

American Airlines Flight Symbol

2018 Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos, Originality, Two-dimensional artwork

Refusal Affirmed Lacked sufficient originality. Simplistic arrangement of non-protectable elements does not demonstrate necessary the level of creativity. Work is comprised of basic geometric shapes. Colors of U.S. flag are exceedingly common. Collection of few “common place shapes”, suggesting bird’s anatomy is “a very common design choice for an airline logo".

17 U.S.C. § 102(a) 37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1, 202.1(a), 202.5(c), 202.5(g)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), §§ 310.2, 905, 906.1

AtariBleinsteinCoachFeistSatava

COMMVAULT HEXAGON

Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos, Originality, Two-dimensional artwork

Refusal Affirmed Lacked sufficient creativity. Work's constituent elements - two parallelograms, the hexagon, and triangle - are not individually subject to copyright protection Combination of elements also not sufficiently creative.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a) 37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1, 202.1(a), 202.5(c), 202.5(g)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), §§ 310.2, 313.4(j) 905, 906.1

AtariBleinsteinCoachFeistHomer Laughlin China Co.Satava

UnCruise Whale Tail Logo

2017 Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos, Originality, Two-dimensional work

Refusal Affirmed "The Work does not contain the requisite [original] authorship." Logo "uses two blue lines to create an exceedingly simplistic design with essentially three cuneate shapes," which are unprotectable under copyright law. Rejected applicant's arguments that because design depicts a whale's tail, it should be protected as more than familiar or geometric shapes. Considering the design as depiction of an animal's physical characteristics does not make design more creative.

37 CFR § 202.1(a)Compendium (THIRD), § 906.1

AtariBleisteinCoachFeistSatava

STORY Logo 2017 Originality, Two-dimensional artwork, Labels and logos, Text, Typography, Words and short phrases

Refusal Affirmed Use of stylized letter “O” is merely variation of typographic ornamentation and therefore ineligible for copyright protection. Trivial variations of basic building blocks of expression, like letters of alphabet, cannot be copyrighted “regardless of how novel and creative the shape and form of the typeface characters may be.” Mirrored effect of the word "STORY" is among unoriginal elements that "fall within the narrow category of works that lack even a minimum level of creativity."

37 CFR § 202.1(a),(e)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), § 906.4

Darden Eltra FeistMM Cable Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc., 97 F.3d 1504, 1519 (1st Cir. 1996)

Joe Unleaded, Joe Tall Dark and Handsome, and Wake Up Joe (2)

2017 Text, Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Labels and logos

Refusal Reversed In Part

In-part reversed on procedural grounds to allow applicant to amend application in light of revised version of the Compendium released shortly after initial refusal. Board upheld refusal of two-dimensional artwork, which it summarily agreed was insufficiently creative. Partial reversal allowed applicant to amend its application to include claim based on text elements, which claim was absent in original application. Applicant convinced Board that omission was honest mistake, and was therefore allowed to amend application under new policy in 2017 edition of Compendium. Board then referred amended application to Office of Registration Policy and Practice to review text claims.

COMPENDIUM (THIRD), §§ 618.8(G), 1708.5

Paramount Coffee Co. v. U.S. Copyright Office , No. 1:16-cv-1074 (W.D. Mich., July 11, 2017)

Blade Piercing Skin

2017 Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos, Originality, Two-dimensional artwork

Refusal Affirmed Work did not contain “requisite level of authorship to sustain a claim of copyright.” Work’s elements were “mere variations of typographic ornamentation” which, under Compendium, the "Office cannot register…” 90-degree edges and slight tapering of characters deemed “inconsequential differences not protected by copyright.” Work's elements ultimately deemed too similar to other designs to be copyrightable. Board found nesting of letter "C" is “a common design feature in logos, found in Chicago Cubs, Comedy Central, CNN, and Federal Communications Commission logos, among others.” Board further noted that designs with similar elements were denied copyright protection. Attractiveness and effort in creation are not factors to be considered.

17 U.S.C. §102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), (e), 202.5(c), 202.10(a)COMPENDIUM (THIRD)§§ 310.2, 313.4(J), 906.1, 913.1

AtariBleisteinCoach, Inc.FeistHarper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, 471 U.S. 539, 558 (1985)John Muller & Co.L. Batlin & Son, Inc.SatavaTompkinsWillard v. Eastern , 206 F. Supp. 2d 723 (D.V.I. 2002)

Dieudonne Enterprises

2017 Labels and logos, Originality, Text, Two-dimensional artwork, Typography, Words and short phrases

Refusal Affirmed Shadowing under letters is a “barely perceptive element [that] does not ‘possess more than a mere de minimums quantum of creativity.’” Work lacked sufficient “independent creation” and “sufficient creativity.” Board flatly rejected Applicant’s attempt to compare Work to a similar registered work.

17 U.S.C. §10237 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), (e), 202.10(a)COMPENDIUM § 309.3 (3d ed. 2014)

AtariCoach, Inc.DardenFeistHomer Laughlin China Co.Satava

Itsa Packaging Design

2017 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos, Layout and format

Refusal Reversed Work is six pages of nearly identical packaging designs. Work was more than a “template of expression” and demonstrated “minimal degree of creativity” required by U.S. Supreme Court. However Board found that copyright in Work was thin, and did not protect use of "standard swirl designs" because they were “unoriginal elements.” . Thus, Board cautioned that registration covers only original and creative features displayed in Work, and not standard designs or other unoriginal elements.

COMPENDIUM (THIRD) § 313.3(e)

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirt, Inc. , 323 F.3d 763, 766 (9th Cir. 2003)Feist Satava

SmartSign S-2257 No Trespassing

2017 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Words and short phrases, Compilation, Labels and logos, Typography

Refusal Affirmed Combination of textual and graphic elements are "at most, a non-protectable combination of standard font, spacing, and short phrases, which are likely dictated by industry guidelines or practices.” Graphic “depicted a surveillance camera in the simplest geometric shapes possible, including a bent line as a support arm, a rectangular box, and a cylindrical lens.”

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(c)COMPENDIUM §§ 618.6, 906.1 (3d ed. 2014)

AtariCoachEltra FeistFerman v. Jenlis, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-00074, 2016 WL 7912016 (S.D. Iowa 2016)Hutchins v. Zoll Med. Corp ., 492 F.3d 1377, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2007)Magic Mktg. v. Mailing Servs. , 634 F. Supp. 769, 771 (______)Marobie - Fl. Inc. v. National Association for Fire Equipment Distributors , No. 96C 2966, 2000 WL 1053957 (N.D. III. 2000)Tompkins Graphics

Cod Liver Packaging Artwork

2017 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Labels and logos, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Compilations, Words and short phrases

Refusal Affirmed Decision cited general bar against registration for “[w]ords and short phrases,” even if combined with basic shapes, symbols, or coloring. (prohibiting registration of “well-known and commonly symbols that contain a de minimis amount of expression.”). When evaluated as a composition, “the selection and placement of the Work’s elements are not the product of creative choice, but are typical of commercial labels.” Specifically, elements including “the nutritional facts, the UPC code” and manufacturing information were “non-creative considerations or are mandated by government rules.”

17 U .S .C. §§ 102(a), 102(b)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(c), 202.5(g), 202.10(c)COMPENDIUM §§ 313.4(C), 313.4(F), 313.4(J), 913. 1.

Alberto-Culver Co. v. Andrea Dumon, Inc. ,466 F.2d 705, 710 (7th Cir. 1972)AtariCoachFeistFMC Corp. v. Control Sols., Inc. , 369 F. Supp. 2d 539, 571-72 (E.D. Pa. 2005)Parjums Givenchy, Inc. v. C&C Beauty Sales, Inc. , 832 F. Supp. 1378, 1391 (C.D. Cal. 1993)Satava

Nikon Brand Logo

2017 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos, Typography, Words and short phrases

Refusal Affirmed Not only were stylized brand name and background designs not individually subject to copyright protection, but combination of elements was “not sufficiently creative from a copyright perspective.” Further, “placement of the word towards the bottom of the [Nikon logo] is typical of many companies’ designs, and the use of a bright background color similarly does not evidence sufficient creativity.” The "use of a series of similar geometric shapes such as the elongated ovals also is not in itself creative.”

17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.1(e), 202.5(c), 202.5(g)COMPENDIUM, §§ 310, 313.4(C), 313.3(0), 906.1 (3d ed. 2014)

Amp/ex Manufacturing Co. v. A.B.C. Plastic Fabricators, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 285 (E.D. Pa. 1960)AtariBleistein Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 241 F3d 350 (4th Cir. 2001)CoachEltra FeistJada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc. 518 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2008)SatavaThreeline Imp., Inc. v. Vernikov, No. 1:15-cv-02333 (____)

Visa Flag Symbol Work et al

2017 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Words and short phrases, Typography, Labels and logos

Refusal Affirmed Visa Flag and Visa Brand design filed as two-dimensional artworks within two separate texts. Visa already attempted, unsuccessfully, to register Flag Symbol in 2010. Board reaffirmed that denial. In turn, Visa Brand design is not protectable because mere words, typographic ornamentation, and typeface exhibit only de minimis authorship. Visa argued Office did not consider Works as a whole (i.e. with their accompanying texts). Board responded that combination of text and Works not sufficiently creative. Works were included in order to demonstrate what text describes — how correctly to use or display two different trademarks. This does not exhibit creative spark needed for protection. Also, layout of texts not original, but standard. Visa pointed to other unoriginal but registered works. Board countered that not bound by previous decisions. Visa asserted that it was held to a higher standard of originality. Board stated this was not true and reiterated that threshold for originality was not reached.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. § 202. l(a), (e); § 202.10(a)COMPENDIUM, § 309.3, 313.4(C), 621.1, 621.4, 621.5, 905, 906.5; 913. 1 (3d Ed., ___)

Feist Coach Satava

adidas 3-Bars logo

2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos

Refusal Affirmed Three simple, black trapezoidal shapes not sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection and arrangement from smallest to largest in ascending order does not make Work sufficiently creative. Board says ADIDAS bars are analogous to a work in Compendium that shows a "picture composed of a purple background and evenly spaced white circles," which is stated not to exhibit sufficient creativity. Adidas bars design is "basic combination of of ordinary, public domain shapes."

17 U.S.C. §102(a)37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a), § 202. 10(a)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), § 313.4(J), 913.1, 905, 906.1

Atari Bleistein CoachFeist John Muller & Co. Satava Tompkins Graphics

Apple Icon iAD 2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos

Refusal Affirmed Combination of square with rounded edges, the word " iAd" in white, Apple logo in white, a curved line, and blue shading lacks requisite creativity and each individual element is uncopyrightable. Apple argues Board should consider that icon is shaped like an "app icon" and not rounded square. Board responds that looks like a rounded square, which is common shape for app icons. Changing name of shape does not effect outcome. Apple argued that each element was product of many creative choices. Board states that "intangible attributes . . . including the professional skills and choices of the Work's designer in selecting design elements -- cannot be assessed in an objective manner because they are not evident in the deposit itself." Board does not evaluate author's claimed intentions or design's visual impact in assessing originality. Sweat of the brow argument does not pass muster; how much time or skill Apple says was put into the design is irrelevant.

17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1 (a), 202.10(a)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), § 310.2, § 313.4(J), § 913.1(3d ed. 2014)

AtariBleistein Coach Feist

BBM Icon 2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos

Refusal Affirmed BBM Icon, although consisting of combination of elements such as well-known BlackBerry Logo placed within speech balloons, failed to satisfy requirement of creative authorship to be granted copyright protection. Work comprised of combination of common geometric shapes and commonly used symbols. Even the combination of several elements used did not render Work sufficiently original. Work is said to be "simple combination" and fails to meet even low threshold of originality.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1 (a), 202.5(c)COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 313.4(1),906. 1 (3d ed. 2014)

AtariBleistein CoachFeistSatava

Camarena 2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Useful article, Originality, Layout and format, Labels and logos

Refusal Affirmed Bottle considered useful article and not registerable. Because bottle design is not registrable, it cannot be a compilation, even if its labels might be separately registrable.

17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a)(5)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.5(c), 202.5(g)COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 310.2, 924.2(a), 924.1, 913.1 and 913.2

AtariCoachCustom Chrome Inc. v. Ringer, 1995 WL 405690 (D.D.C. June 30, 1995)Esquire Inc. v. Ringer, 591 F.2d 796, 800 (D.C. Cir 1978)FeistInhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc. 755 F.3d 1038. 1041 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014)Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954)SatavaTed Arnold. Ltd. v. Silvercraft Co., 259 F. Supp. 733 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)

Derrick Logo et al

2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos, Typography

Refusal Affirmed Logo consisting of red oval fading to a smaller white oval overlapped by "Derrick" above the words "Equipment Company" in black lacks creative authorship and is uncopyrightable. Fading oval is mere geographic shape that, regardless of color, is uncopyrightable. "The Office cannot register a work consisting of a simple combination of a few familiar symbols or designs with minor linear or spatial variations." Board commented that "a visual artwork that is used as a trademark, logo, or label is registerable, but only if it 'contains the requisite qualifications for copyright.'"

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ (a), 202.1(e), 202.10(b)COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 309.3, 313.4(C), 313.4(J), 906.1, 913.1 (3d ed. 2014)

AtariCoachFeist Satava

HUF 12 GALAXY LOGO

2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos

Refusal Affirmed Work consists of capitalized H with 12 five-point stars in circular shape around the H. Work therefore consists of a selection and arrangement of non-copyrightable elements. Some combinations of unprotectable elements will qualify for copyright protection but not all combinations and arrangements. To qualify for protection, elements must be numerous and arrangement thereof must be original. Work consists of arrangement that is not unique in any way and is obvious or minor. Accordingly, Work does not have requisite originality and creative authorship.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R.§§ 202.1(a) 202.5(c) 202.5(g)COMPENDUM (THIRD) §§ 906.1, 310.1, 310.3. 310.8

AtariCoachFeistSatava

JJ 1 Logo et al 2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Labels and logos, Typography

Refusal Affirmed Works ("JJ logos") do not contain sufficient amount of original and creative artistic authorship, despite Applicant's argument that the logo was "highly stylized" in such a way that consumers would not even recognize the shapes to be the letters "J." Argument that a professional graphic designer created the works was deemed irrelevant. Copyright Office found the "creative spark utterly lacking, A combination of unprotectable elements can be registrable only if the arrangement is original.

The works are three variations of a single, 2-D graphic logo design consisting of two adjacent "J" shapes, one larger than the other

17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b)37 C.F.R.§§ 202.1(a) 202.5(c), 202.5(g), 202.10(a), 310.2COMPENDUM (THIRD) §§ 310.2, 913.1

AtariBleistenCoachFeist

Joe Unleaded et al. (1)

2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Typography, Labels and logos, Text

Refusal Affirmed Applicant has burden to identify all of copyrightable authorship that it intends to register. Board allowed amendment of what was claimed. Up for reconsideration is whether textual elements are registrable. Board already deemed two-dimensional artwork elements insufficiently creative in prior opinion.

COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES§ 618.8(G) (3d ed. 2014)COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES§ 1708.5 (3d ed. 2017)

Paramount Coffee Co. v. United States Copyright Office

Naga Gold & Silver (Season XX)

2016 Jewelry design, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Words and short phrases, Labels and logos

Refusal Affirmed Jewelry design of ring, earring and bracelet bearing dragon scales and initials "J" and "H" in interlocking logo lacked original and creative authorship. Dragon scales are too familiar and ordinary (scales are common accessory, jewelry design and common natural design). Cassini-like oval cross-sectional shape of the jewelry did not have "creative spark necessary for copyright protection." Designations of metal quality are also uncopyrightable and initials and names are uncopyrightable as mere lettering. "A mere simplistic arrangement of non-protectable elements does not demonstrate the level of creativity necessary to warrant protection." Attractiveness of design, intentions of author, its symbolism, time and effort to create design and commercial success are not factors in determining copyrightability.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.1(e), 202.10(b)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), §§ 310.2, 310.7, 310.10, 313.4(F), 313.4(J), 313.4(K), 908.2, 908.3, 924.2(B) (3d ed. 2014)

Atari Bleistein FeistHerbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp v. Kalpakian , 446 F. 2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971)Paul Morelli Design, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co. , 200 F. Supp. 2d 482 (E.D. Pa. 2002)Satava

Nationwide Framework Logo

2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Typography, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Labels and logos

Refusal Affirmed Lacked originality; the ordinary typographical expression, simple color scheme, and two common geometric shapes...as a whole lack the requisite amount of creativity in their selection, combination, and arrangement. While deliberation may have gone into the creation of the design in order to convey a specific message, any intangible elements of the work cannot be factored in by the Board. Moreover, the Board does not assess authorial intentions or the visual effect upon the viewer when performing the creativity analysis.

17 U.S.C. § 102(a), 17 U.S.C. § 102(b)37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a), 202.10(a)COMPENDIUM (THIRD), § 310.2 (3d ed. 2014) Atari BleisteinCoach FeistSatava

Octagon with ADT Monogram

2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Typography, Labels and logos

Refusal Affirmed Lacked originality; said to be a simplistic arrangement of non-copyrightable elements. Here the shapes, colors, and letters are not individually copyrightable and are not arranged in a way that makes them so. The creative spark is not present. The arrangement is too obvious. Copyright does not protect common geometric shapes unless arranged creatively. ADT argues that its design is "unique." Board's response is that it does not consider uniqueness and novelty during the originality analysis. The Board adds that the ADT logo is a combination of letters, colors, and shapes typical of a logo design.

17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b)37 C.F.R. §§ 202.1(a), 202.10(a) COMPENDIUM (THIRD), § 310.2 (3d ed. 2014)

AtariBleisteinCoachFeistSatava

Rosen Tagescreme 30 ml FS

2016 Two-dimensional artwork, Originality, Common shapes/symbols/designs, Words and short phrases, Labels and logos, Layout and format

Refusal Affirmed Lacked originality; Office does not register “labels that consist of only…[m]ere spatial placement or format of trademark, logo, or label elements…[u]copyrightable use of color, frames, borders, or differently sized font, [and] [m]ere use of different fonts or functional colors, frames, or borders, either standing alone or in combination.”

17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b)37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a), 202.10(c)COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 310.2, 313.4(J), 313.4(K), 913.1 (3d ed. 2014)

AtariBleisteinCoachFeistSatava