Logo, simply do not meet the admittedly low threshold. Third, we do not dispute that the logo consists of a number (albeit a small number) of elements which have been arranged and colored. The fatal defect in this logo in terms of copyrightability is that it does not consist of creative elements or embody any creative arrangement. Finally, the Office examines a work both as to its individual elements as well as to their particular combination in the work as a whole. From neither vantage point does the Best Western Logo evidence a sufficient amount of creativity to qualify for copyright protection.
In support of your argument that the subject graphic design is copyrighlable, you point to several other works which the Office registered and which you argue embody less creativity than the Best Westem Logo. See Letter from Youssefi to Copyright R&P Division of 04/28/05, at 2; Letter from Youssefi to Copyright R&P Division of 09/26/05, at 5. It is important first to note that the Office docs not compare works as part of its evaluation process. The Office must independently evaluate each work submitted for registration to determine if it meets the minimal, but existent, statutory requirements. It is simply not the Copyright Office’s role to compare and contrast works submitted for registration. See e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 201.2(a) (“The Copyright Office, however, does not undertake the making of comparisons of copyright deposits to determine similarity between works.”). Moreover, the comparison you have drawn to Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 241 F.3d 350, 356 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1038 (2001), wherein the court found to be copyrightable a graphic design featuring a open-winged raven holding in its beak a shield decorated with the letter “B,” the word “Ravens” and a cross, despite the fact that it consisted of, as you describe them, “simple, well-known elements,” does not advance your cause. Letter from Youssefi to Copyright R&P Division of 04/28/05, at 2. The Copyright Office’s view is consistent with the court’s, as evidenced by the fact that the Copyright Office did indeed register that design. The Ravens logo is not analogous to the subject Best Western Logo. The Ravens logo embodies sufficient creativity in individual elements, such as the artistic rendering of the raven itself, as well as in the particular combination of all of the elements. In contrast, the Best Western Logo contains no elements which are copyrightable in and of themselves or in their particular combination for the reasons already discussed.[1]
- ↑ The Board finds your citations to Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer California, 937 F.2d 759 (2d Cir. 1991) (finding copyrightability in a particular arrangement of “clip art” roses positioned in varying directions in horizontal rows against an ornate background) and Prince Group, Inc. v. MTS Products, 967 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (finding copyrightability in a multi-colored dot design where the dots featured crescent shadows and were positioned according to irregular diagonal lines) similarly unpersuasive due to the reasoning explained by Attorney Advisor Giroux. See Letter from Youssefi to Copyright R&P Division of 04/28/05, at 3; Letter from Giroux to Youssefi of 08/09/05, at 3.
-8-
