Fabrica Incorporated, a Corporation v. El Dorado Corporation, a Corporation

697 F.2d 890, 217 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 698, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30983
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 28, 1983
Docket81-5406, 80-6085
StatusPublished
Cited by59 cases

This text of 697 F.2d 890 (Fabrica Incorporated, a Corporation v. El Dorado Corporation, a Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fabrica Incorporated, a Corporation v. El Dorado Corporation, a Corporation, 697 F.2d 890, 217 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 698, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30983 (9th Cir. 1983).

Opinion

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Fabrica sued appellee El Dora-do for copyright infringement and unfair competition. The district court granted El Dorado’s motion for a directed verdict on the copyright claim. The jury then returned a general verdict in favor of Fabrica on the unfair competition issue. The court, however, entered judgment n.o.v. for El Dorado. Fabrica appeals both the directed verdict and the judgment n.o.v.

We believe that the court correctly directed a verdict in favor of El Dorado on the copyright claim. We conclude, however, that a reasonable jury could have returned a verdict for Fabrica on the unfair competition claim. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Background

Fabrica and El Dorado are commercial carpet manufacturers and wholesalers. *892 Commercial carpeting is customarily marketed by way of “display folders”—books containing carpet samples accompanied by a description of the carpet’s technical specifications. Most mills develop a distinctive layout and design for their folders to create a recognizable company style.

Both Fabrica and El Dorado were originally in the residential carpet business. When Fabrica decided to market commercial carpeting, it commissioned the design of a distinctive, high-quality display folder. The folder was covered with simulated white suede, with saddle stitching along the borders and brass tips at the corners. It had a unique fold-out book format featuring a full-page carpet sample on the inside left panel and small carpet samples on the inside right panel. According to both Fabrica and El Dorado, the folder was superior, both in structure and appearance, to any carpet sample folder previously used by a commercial carpet mill.

El Dorado entered the commercial carpet market at about the same time as Fabrica. The evidence showed that El Dorado’s vice-president took a Fabrica display folder to a folder manufacturer and instructed him to copy it. Virtually every feature of the Fabrica folder was incorporated into the design of the El Dorado folder; the only difference was in the color of the simulated suede and stitching. El Dorado even copied the placement on the folders of the brand name, company name and address, and showroom locations. Appendix A to this opinion consists of six photographs, each of which compares features of the Fabrica and El Dora-do folders.

El Dorado admits the copying but argues that (1) the folders are not entitled to copyright protection as graphic works because they are “useful articles” under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, and (2) the folders are “functional” and therefore not protected under the principles of unfair competition.

The Copyright Issue

At the close of testimony, the district court granted El Dorado’s motion for a directed verdict on the copyright claim. The court ruled as a matter of law that Fabrica’s carpet display folders were “useful articles” under the copyright laws, 17 U.S.C. § 101, and therefore not entitled to protection as a “pictorial, graphic and sculptural work” under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5).

A directed verdict is proper if, examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no substantial evidence to support a verdict for that party. Davison v. Pacific Inland Navigation Co., 569 F.2d 507, 509 (9th Cir.1978). The court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Flores v. Pierce, 617 F.2d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir.1980). The court may not direct a verdict simply because it feels that a contrary conclusion would have been more reasonable. Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway, 321 U.S. 29, 35, 64 S.Ct. 409, 412, 88 L.Ed. 520 (1944). The same standard is applied when the Court of Appeals reviews the granting of a directed verdict. Marquis v. Chrysler Corp., 577 F.2d 624, 631 (9th Cir.1978).

Fabrica argues that its display folder is a “pictorial, graphic and sculptural work” and therefore qualifies for copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5). The types of “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” that will be accorded copyright protection are described in 17 U.S.C. § 101 as

two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, technical drawings, diagrams and models ....

Such works were not copyrightable at all for a long period of time, but were protected, if at all, by patent. In Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954), however, the Supreme Court ratified a copyright regulation providing for protection of “works of artistic craftsmanship, insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned: ...” 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:

*893 If the sole intrinsic function of an article is its utility, the fact that it is unique and attractively shaped will not qualify it as a work of art. However, if the shape of a utilitarian article incorporates features, such as artistic sculpture, carving, or pictorial representation, which can be identified separately and are capable of existence independently as a work of art, such features will be eligible for registration.

37 C.F.R. 202.10(c) (1959) (emphasis added).

As the district court in the instant case noted, this test was very difficult to apply. Courts struggled to decide whether an article’s function was solely utilitarian. If so, copyright protection was denied unless the object’s artistic features could be identified separately and exist independently as a work of art. If, however, an object was only partly

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
776 F.3d 692 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
NATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. Gamber-Johnson LLC
734 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (W.D. Washington, 2010)
Lanard Toys Limited v. Novelty, Inc.
375 F. App'x 705 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Aurora World, Inc. v. Ty Inc.
719 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (C.D. California, 2009)
Jonathan Browning, Inc. v. Venetian Casino Resort LLC
816 F. Supp. 2d 793 (N.D. California, 2009)
Want Ad Digest, Inc. v. Display Advertising, Inc.
653 F. Supp. 2d 171 (N.D. New York, 2009)
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.
454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. California, 2006)
Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc.
439 F.3d 1365 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Global Manufacture Group, LLC v. Gadget Universe.Com
417 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (S.D. California, 2006)
Pinnacle Pizza Co. v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.
395 F. Supp. 2d 891 (D. South Dakota, 2005)
Bonazoli v. R.S.V.P. International, Inc.
353 F. Supp. 2d 218 (D. Rhode Island, 2005)
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting Fixture Co.
345 F.3d 1140 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Big Island Candies, Inc. v. Cookie Corner
244 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Hawaii, 2003)
State v. Brantley
56 P.3d 1252 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2002)
No. 98-17072
225 F.3d 1068 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
697 F.2d 890, 217 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 698, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabrica-incorporated-a-corporation-v-el-dorado-corporation-a-corporation-ca9-1983.