Tabberone Logo

Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke


This information is taken directly from the court opinion. It is not taken out of context nor is it altered.
From Custom Dynamics v Radiantz LED Lighting, 535 F. Supp. 2d 542 (E.D. NCar W.D. 2008):

Custom also may be alleging a copyright not in the product-descriptive display and technical description of aftermarket motorcycle lighting accessories in general, but rather in its unique expression of these particular product-description pictures and its unique description of the technical details of these particular aftermarket motorcycle lighting accessories. If so, Custom's claim is weak, because its images and descriptions do not satisfy the standard for originality.

"The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author." Feist Publ., 499 U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. 1282. To be "original," every work must "possess[] at least some minimal degree of creativity?' Id. The Supreme Court has described this bare minimum requirement as "some creative spark" Id. However, there is no "creative spark" involved in a purely descriptive picture of a product. For example, in Oriental Art Printing, Inc. v. Goldstar Printing Corp., the court held that pure product-description pictures of Chinese food dishes were not sufficiently original to merit copyright protection. 175 F.Supp.2d 542, 546 (S.D.N.Y.2001). Rather than being creative works with some minimal level of originality, the court found that the photographs were instead meant to "serve a purely utilitarian purpose: to identify [the food items for sale]." See id. at 547. Just as the plaintiff in Oriental Art could not corner the market on Chinese food menus by' copyrighting a purely descriptive, picture of General Tso's chicken, see id. at 546, plaintiff may not corner the Market on advertising aftermarket motorcycle lighting accessories by copyrighting purely descriptive pictures of its wares. See id. at 548 (noting that to hold otherwise "effectively would permit [plaintiff] to monopolize the market"). Custom's photographs Were meant to serve the purely utilitarian purpose of displaying examples of its product to potential consumers, and do not merit copyright protection. See Verified Compl. Ex. 7; cf. Feist Publ., 499 U.S. at 363, 111 S.Ct. 1282 ("[T]here, is nothing remotely creative about arranging names alphabetically in a white-pages directory").

The same analysis applies to the technical descriptions accompanying the pictures. The disputed items consist simply of photographs of aftermarket motorcycle taillights with a neutral surface in the background, and the technical details of the product beside the, photograph. See Verified Compl. Ex. 7 (&g., product labeled "Clear LED Tail Light" that "Fits all Deuce Models"). These technical descriptions do not illustrate any "creative spark." Accordingly, Custom's copyright claims with respect to the product-descriptive photographs and accompanying technical details are weak.

counter for iweb