Law Offices of David L. Duncan
two registration decisions from 40 years ago are not persuasive on this point. Compendium (Third) § 309.3.
Second, Caldwell argues that “repeated commercial exploitation” of the epigram is evidence that the Work meets the statutory requirements for protection. See Second Request at 11–12. The Board disagrees. The Office does “not consider the marketability or commercial success” of works submitted for registration; commercial success is one of several “factors that have no bearing on whether the originality requirement has been met.” Compendium (Third) §§ 310, 310.10; see also Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002, 1015 (2017) (“Nothing in the statute suggests that copyrightability depends on market surveys.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Review Board of the United States Copyright Office affirms the refusal to register the claim in the Work. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 202.5(g), this decision constitutes final agency decision on the matter.
A personal signature appears here
U.S. Copyright Office Review Board
Suzanne V. Wilson, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights
Maria Strong, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Policy and International Affairs
Jordana Rubel, Assistant General Counsel
-5-
