Copyright Registration Expungement Granted in Last-Inning Victory

COPYRIGHTREGISTRATIONEXPUNGEMENTGRANTEDINLAST-
INNING
VICTORY

H
UGUESG.RICHARD*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

Itistritetosaythatinabaseballgame,thereisnowinnerbeforethelastinningis
over.OnegetsthesameimpressionwhenreadingthejudgementofMadamJustice
ReedinDRGINC.v.DATAFILELIMITEDandTHEREGISTRAROFCOPYRIGHTS
(FederalCourtofCanada,TrialDivision,dated20November,1987,Courtno.T-
1334-86).
Theapplicantwasseekingtheexpungementofcertaincopyrightregistrations
pertainingtolabelsdesignedtobeaffixedtofolderstoenableeasylocationofafile
andeasyidentificationofanymisfilingwhichmaytakeplace.

Theapplicantraisedsixgroundsforexpungement.Therespondentwassuccessful
withrespecttothefirstfivegrounds,anditwasonlyonthesixthgroundthatthe
applicantcamebackinforceinthelast-minutevictorywhichbecameapparentonly
inthelastfewlinesofthe26
thpageofthejudgement.Thegroundsforexpungement
weredealtwithasfollows.
(1)Thedesignisnotpropersubjectmatterforcopyrightbecauseitlacksthe
characteristicsofanartisticwork.
MadamJusticeReedfoundthatrequiringCourtstodeterminewhatis“artistic”,and
whatisnot,isnotahappysituation.Sheexpressedtheviewthatitisnotnecessary
fortheCourttoascertainthedegreeof“artistic”-nessinordertodecidewhethera
workfallsinthecategoryofan“artisticwork”.Shefoundthattherespondent’swork
wasagraphicdesignreducedbyaprintingprocess.Assuch,itwasanartisticwork
forpurposesofcopyright,andnohigherstandardoforiginalitywasrequiredthanin
thecaseofliterarycopyright.
(2)Thedesignisnotapropersubjectmatterforcopyrightbecauseitisessentiallya
functionaltool.

©CIPS,1988.*WithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.Publishedat
(February1988),2:1WorldIntellectualPropertyReport5-6.Publication142.0254.

2

MadamJusticeReedfoundthatshecouldnotholdthatsimplybecausefunctionand
designcoalesceinthework,thedesigntherebycannotbeprotectedbycopyright.
ShenotedthatmanyitemsspecificallylistedintheCopyrightActmaybedesigned
primarilytoservefunctionalpurposes:maps;charts;photographs;architectural
buildings;worksofartisticcraftsmanship.Shedecidedthatthoughthelabeldesign
wascreatedtoserveafunctionalpurpose,itwasnottherebydeprivedofthe
characterofan“artisticwork”,norofcopyrightprotection.

(3)Theworkisnotsufficientlyoriginalbecauseitdoesnotconstituteasubstantial
modificationofthepre-existingart.
MadamJusticeReedthoughtthatthiswasnotatestfororiginalitywhichappliedin
thefieldofcopyright.Thiskindoftestappliedwithrespecttopatents.Thetestis
whetherornottheworkwastheauthor’soriginalproduction.TheCourtdecidedthat
therespondent’sworkhadmettherelevantrequirementsoforiginality:itwasthe
originalworkoftheauthor;itwasnotcopiedfromanother.

(4)Theallegedauthorwasnottheauthorofthework.

Itwasarguedbytheapplicantthatthe“work”wasnothingmorethananordertothe
printerstocreatelabelshavingcertainbackgroundcolors.TheCourtdidnotaccept
thisargumentandfoundthat,becausetherespondenthadaregisteredcopyright,
theburdenofproofwasontheapplicanttoshowthatMr.Barberwasnottheauthor.
Inlightoftheevidenceadduced,theCourtfoundthattheapplicanthadnotmetthe
burdenofdisprovingauthorshipbyMr.Barber.
(5)The“work”wasdisclosedinpriorpatents,andassuch,wasdedicatedtothe
public.
TheCourtdidnotseemuchmeritinthisargument.Itdidnotseehowthedisclosure
ofanideainapatentcanpreventcopyrightattachingtoaworkwhichusesthesame
ideabutwhichisindependentlypropersubjectmatterforcopyright.Theideaisnot
copyrighted.Itistheformofexpressionwhichisthesubjectofthecopyright.

(6)ThedesignwasregistrableundertheIndustrialDesignActandthereforeisnot
protectedbycopyrightasaresultoftheoperationofsection46oftheCopyrightAct.

Thisargumentwasconsideredtobethemostserioushurdlefortherespondent.
Section46oftheCopyrightActprecludescopyrightprotectionofdesignscapableof
beingregisteredundertheIndustrialDesignAct.TheCourtfoundthatthe
respondent’sdesignwasonethatisprimafacieregistrableundertheIndustrial
DesignAct.Therespondentbroughtforwardfourargumentsinsupportofits
contentionthatthelabeldesigncouldnotberegisteredundertheIndustrialDesign

3
Act.Havinganalysedallfoursetsofarguments,theCourtconcludedthatsection46
oftheCopyrightActappliedandthattheregistrationmustthereforebeexpunged.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE

4
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)