DASCENZO GATES Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
II ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
On May 25, 2021, Ariat filed an application to register a copyright claim in the Work. In a May 27, 2021 letter, a Copyright Office registration specialist refused to register the claim, determining that it lacked the requisite creative authorship to support a copyright claim. Initial Letter Refusing Registration from U.S. Copyright Office to Nima Astani at 1 (May 27, 2021)
On August 18, 2021, Ariat requested that the Office reconsider its initial refusal to register the Work, arguing that the arrangement of the elements in the Work was sufficiently creative to meet the standard set forth in Feist Publ'ns v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Letter from David S. D'Ascenzo to U.S. Copyright Office at 2 (Aug. 18, 2021) ("First Request"). After reviewing the Work in light of the points raised in the First Request, the Office reevaluated the claims and again concluded that the Work could not be registered. Refusal of First Request for Reconsideration from U.S. Copyright Office to David S. D'Ascenzo (Dec. 21, 2021). The Office explained that the Work did not demonstrate sufficient creativity in the combination and arrangement of its component elements. Id. at 3.
Ina letter dated February 14, 2022, Ariat requested that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 202.5(c), the Office reconsider for a second time its refusal to register the Work. Letter from David S. D'Ascenzo to U.S. Copyright Office (Feb. 14, 2022) ("Second Request”). Ariat argued that the Work is sufficiently creative to warrant registration based on prior decisions of the Board and several court cases that upheld registration for works that Ariat believes are analogous to the Work. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
After carefully examining the Work and considering the arguments made in the First and Second Requests, the Board finds that the Work does not contain the requisite originality necessary to sustain a claim to copyright.
A work may be registered for copyright if it is an "original work[] of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). In Feist, the Supreme Court explained that this requirement of originality contains two components: that it was independently created (rather than copied from another work) and sufficiently creative. 499 U.S. at 345. The necessary amount of creativity is "extremely low" and "even a slight amount will suffice." Id. Though the requisite level of creativity is "not particularly stringent," there nonetheless is "a narrow category of works in which the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent." Id. at 358–59. Works that do not meet this low threshold for creativity are not eligible for copyright. Id. at 359
The Office's regulations implement these well-established principles. For example, to sustain a copyright, a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work "must embody some creative authorship in its delineation or form." 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(a). Additionally, common shapes, familiar symbols and designs do not qualify for copyright. Id. § 202.1(a); see also U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 906.1 (3d ed. 2021) ("Compendium (Third)") ("The Copyright Act does not protect common geometric shapes,
-2-
