(a) In order to be acceptable as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, the work must embody some creative authorship in its delineation or form. The registrability of such a work is not affected by the intention of the author as to the use of the work or the number of copies reproduced. The availability of protection or grant of protection under the law for a utility or design patent will not affect the registrability of a claim in an original work of pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship.
(b) A claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter. While the Copyright Office will not investigate whether the matter has been or can be registered at the Patent and Trademark Office, it will register a properly filed copyright claim in a print or label that contains the requisite qualifications for copyright even though there is a trademark on it. However, registration of a claim to copyright does not give the claimant rights available by trademark registrations at the Patent and Trademark Office.
[46 FR 33249, June 29, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 15606, Mar. 24, 1995; 61 FR 5445, Feb. 12, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Esquire, Inc. v. Barbara A. Ringer, 591 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
· cites it 10× “The principal reason given was that Copyright Office regulations, specifically 37 C.F.R. § 202.10 (c) (1976), preclude registration of the design of a utilitarian article, such as lighting fixtures, “when all of the design elements .”
Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC, 799 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “37 C.F.R. § 202.10 (a). With this background in mind, we now turn to address whether Varsity’s designs “incorporate[] pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the…”
Fabrica Inc., a Corp. v. El Dorado Corp., a Corp., 697 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 2× “” 37 C.F.R. § 202.10 (a) (1959). After Mazer, in order to prevent the extension of copyright protection to all manner of “useful” industrial products, the Register of Copyrights promulgated the following regulation, which governed until the 1976 Copyright Act went into effect:…”
Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 732 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
· cites it 6× “” 37 C.F.R. § 202.10 (a), (b). The regulations required, however, that the artistic features incorporated in the utilitarian object be separately identifiable and “capable of existing independently as a work of art.”
Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer, 414 F. Supp. 939 (D.D.C. 1976).
· cites it 3× “It is conceded that the design of the fixture is original and would be qualified and accepted for registration if it did not have solely an obvious utilitarian purpose.”
Ted Arnold Ltd. v. Silvercraft Co., 259 F. Supp. 733 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
· cites it 4× “Its caution indicates that the plaintiff realized that the original notice left room for improvement. However, we find that the original notice was legible, and this is all the law requires.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(c) — 1 case
Fabrica Inc., a Corp. v. El Dorado Corp., a Corp., 697 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1983).
“” 37 C.F.R. § 202.10 (a) (1959). After Mazer, in order to prevent the extension of copyright protection to all manner of “useful” industrial products, the Register of Copyrights promulgated the following regulation, which governed until the 1976 Copyright Act went into effect:…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.