31
I. COPYRIGHT: CASES AND MATERIALS
It seems clear that a mere random collection of letters of the alphabet could not be
copyright and presumably a mere random scribble could not be either, but the devices
with which I am concerned are by no means random and were plainly drawn with
care, to obtain an effect.
These were the trademarks involved:
On the other hand, in the U.S. case of Muller & Co. v. New York Arrows
Soccer Team Inc., 802 F.2d 989 (U.S.: Court of Appeals, 8th Cir., 1986), the
court affirmed the refusal of the U.S. Register of Copyrights to register the
following “arrow” design and “New York Arrows” word trademarks:
The appeal court said:
If, as here, the creator seeks to register the item as a “work of art” or “pictorial,
graphic or sculptural work,” the work must embody some creative authorship in its
delineation or form. ... [T]he Register [has] not abused his discretion in finding that
appellant’s logo lacked the level of creativity needed for copyrightability.
University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch.
601 (U.K.: High Court)
[The plaintiff published a compilation of examination papers of the University of
London, with the consent of the University and the examiners who had set the
papers. The defendant induced some University of London mathematics
students to hand over copies of their exam papers, and published its own
compilation, together with answers and criticism. The plaintiff sued the
defendant for copyright infringement. Under the Copyright Act, only “original”
literary works were protected; so the defendant argued that the exam papers
lacked originality and so could be free copied by all. The court rejected this
argument.]
MR JUSTICE PETERSON:
The word “original” does not in this connection mean that the work must be the expression of
original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but
with the expression of thought, and, in the case of “literary work,” with the expression of thought
in print or writing. The originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought. But
the Act does not require that the expression must be in an original or novel form, but that the
work must not be copied from another work B that it should originate from the author.
