You’re driving the Florida Keys when suddenly you get a hankering for pizza. Tragically there is no toll booth in sight. Minnesota attorney Tom James explains.
“You’re driving over the ocean in the Florida Keys when suddenly you get a hankering for a slice of pizza. Unfortunately, there is no toll booth in sight. What will you do?”
Some of you might remember an article I wrote several years ago that began this way. I was alluding to the strange case of a state turnpike authority that was suing a pizzeria for trademark infringement. Here is a very belated update on that case.
The lawsuit
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority filed a lawsuit against Jersey Boardwalk, a Florida pizzeria, for trademark infringement. It claimed the pizzeria’s mark was so similar to its mark that people were likely to mistakenly assume the pizza restaurant was connected in some way with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. It accused the pizzeria of trading on the goodwill of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. It sought an injunction, compensatory damages, and treble damages, claiming trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition.
Pizza
Pizza is an Italian food that was created in the Naples area of Southern Italy. It is made with different toppings. Some of the most common ones are mozzarella cheese, sausages, pepperoni, vegetables, tomatoes, spices and herbs. These toppings are put on a large piece of bread covered with sauce. The sauce is most often tomato-based, but other kinds of bases may be used. The bread is called a “crust.” Virtually any kind of topping can be put on a pizza. I have even witnessed otherwise rational people using chicken and pineapple as pizza toppings.
Disposition
The court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds. The court noted that the pizzeria does not have any stores in New Jersey. It had only made sales to a handful of New Jersey customers, and they were online sales. These contacts with New Jersey were “too attenuated to put the Defendants on notice that they would be subject to a trademark infringement suit in New Jersey,” the court ruled.
Nor did the company’s use of the word “Jersey” amount to purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in New Jersey. Using the name of a state to conjure consumer interest in nostalgia or exoticism is not what “purposeful availment” of a state’s services or resources means, for purposes of Due Process analysis.
Years before this litigation, the Turnpike Authority had filed an opposition to the pizzeria’s application to register its mark. The United States Trademark Trials and Appeals Board (TTAB) dismissed the Turnpike Authority’s opposition to the pizzeria’s registration of the trademark for restaurant services.
After the registration certificate was issued, the Turnpike Authority filed a petition to cancel it. The U.S. TTAB denied the petition. (TTAB Opposition No. 91219067) The Board found that the Turnpike Authority failed to establish likelihood of confusion with its registered trademark for highway maintenance and information services. The Board did not believe that consumers would expect restaurant and highway maintenance services to come from the same source.
It is one of those kinds of cases that can make you simultaneously scratch and shake your head.
I am, of course, late with this. Where other writers have simply listed works by author, title and description, however, this article includes quotations from them. Does it get any better than this? I think not.
Why are they public domain now?
Copyright protection is not eternal. It only lasts for the number of years specified by law. After that, the work is said to have entered the public domain, meaning that anyone may copy, distribute, perform, display or make new works from it.
In the United States, the U.K., Russia, and most of the European Union, a copyright lasts for 70 years after the author’s death. Accordingly, the works of authors who died in 1951 are now in the public domain. In Canada and most of Asia and Africa, copyrights last for 50 years after the author’s death.
Different rules apply to older works. I explain these in more detail in my books. For our purposes here, we can safely say that U.S. works first published in or before 1926 are now in the public domain, and all pre-1923 sound recordings are now in the public domain.
These rules are subject to exceptions. For example, the U.S. terms of copyright for works made for hire are different from the terms of copyright for other kinds of works.
Derivative works might not be in the public domain
I have seen a lot of articles declaring that when a work enters the public domain, people no longer need to worry about being sued for copyright infringement. Technically speaking, this is true, but it is important to clearly identify the version of the work that is in the public domain.
Suppose Arthur Conan Doyle published a “Sherlock Holmes” mystery prior to 1923. Suppose, further, that he published a sequel to it in 1928. In the sequel, he added certain details that did not appear in the previous version. If you were to try your hand at writing a Holmes mystery now, and you included some of the details that first appeared in the 1928 story, then you may be guilty of copyright infringement.
Similarly, the fact that the original Winnie the Pooh story is now in the public domain does not mean that movies based on the book are, too. A derivative work may still be copyright-protected even after the work on which it is based has entered the public domain.
Here is a small sampling of some of the many works that are in the public domain this year.
The Sun Also Rises
“you can’t get away from yourself by moving from one place to another.”
“It is hard to believe that the declaration of antifascism is nowadays any more a mark of sufficient grace in a writer than a declaration against disease would be in a physician or a declaration against accidents would be in a locomotive engineer. The admirable intention in itself is not enough and criticism begins and does not end when the intention is declared.”
“Under the pressure of fanaticism, and with the mob complacently applauding the show,democratic law tends more and more to be grounded upon the maxim that every citizen is,by nature, a traitor, a libertine, and a scoundrel.In order to dissuade him from his evil-doing the police power is extended until it surpasses anything ever heard of in the oriental monarchies of antiquity.”
Unicolors | Cokato attorney Thomas James shows how Congressional inaction to fix a bad law can lead to unusual interpretive gymnastics in the judicial branch.
In Fourth Estate Public Benefits Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881, 889 (2019), the United States Supreme Court interpreted 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) to mean that a copyright owner cannot file an infringement claim in federal court without first securing either a registration certificate or an official notice of denial of registration from the Copyright Office. In an Illinois Law Review article, I argued that this imposes an unduly onerous burden on copyright owners and that Congress should amend the Copyright Act to abolish the requirement. Unfortunately, Congress has not done that.
Congressional inaction to correct a harsh law with potentially unjust consequences predictably leads to judicial decisions exercising the power of statutory interpretation to ameliorate the consequences. The Court’s decision today inUnicolors v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, __ U.S. __ (No. 20-915, February 24, 2022) is a case in point.
The district court proceedings
Unicolors owns the copyrights in various fabric designs. The company sued H&M Hennes & Mauritz (H&M), claiming that H&M had infringed them. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Unicolor, but H&M moved for judgment as a matter of law (notwithstanding the jury verdict). H&M argued that Unicolors had failed to satisfy the requirement of obtaining a registration certificate prior to commencing suit. Although Unicolors had obtained a registration, H&M argued that the registration was not a valid one.
Specifically, H&M argued that Unicolors had improperly applied to register multiple works with a single application. According to 37 CFR § 202.3(b)(4) (2020), a single application cannot be used to register multiple works unless all of the works in the application were included in the same unit of publication. The 31 fabric designs, H&M contended, had not all been first published at the same time in a single unit; some had been made available separately exclusively to certain customers. Therefore, they could not be registered together as a unit of publication.
The district court denied the motion, holding that a registration may be valid even if contains inaccurate information, provided the registrant did not know the information was inaccurate.
The Ninth Circuit’s reversal
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that Unicolors had failed to satisfy the “single unit of publication” requirement. The Court, however, viewed Unicolors’ characterization of the group of works, in its application, as a “unit of publication” as a mistake of law rather than fact. It is normally a bedrock principle of the law that although mistake of fact may sometimes be asserted as an excuse, ignorance of the law generally cannot be. Since Unicolors had known the relevant facts, namely, that some of the designs had been reserved for some customers separately from the others, its characterization of the group, in the copyright application, as a “unit of publication” was a mistake of law, not fact. Applying the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, the Ninth Circuit held that Unicolor’s registration was not valid.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court’s reversal of the reversal
Section 411(b)(1) says that a registration is valid unless it contains information that the applicant knew was inaccurate. Bucking the traditional maxim that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, the Court interpreted the word know, in this context, to include knowledge of either an applicable fact or an applicable law. The Court drew upon legislative history suggesting that Congress intended to deny infringers the ability to exploit loopholes.
This is actually a good point. A major objective of international copyright treaties and conventions has been to eliminate formalities in the enforcement of copyrights. Registration is one such formality. One may legitimately ask, however, whether Congress’s decision to impose a requirement of obtaining either a certificate of registration or an official denial of registration from the Copyright Office as a precondition to enforcing a copyright reflected an intention to impose and enforce formalities despite the clear intent of treaties by which the United States has agreed to be bound. Not all other countries impose this formal prerequisite to copyright enforcement. In fact, legal scholars both here and abroad have criticized the United States for enacting and enforcing this formality.
The Court dismissed the traditional legal maxim that ignorance of the law is not an excuse by suggesting it only applies to criminal laws. As Justice Thomas points out in his dissent, however, a requirement to “know” a law (or a legal requirement) ordinarily is satisfied, even in civil cases, by constructive knowledge; actual knowledge is not necessary. Citizens generally are charged with the responsibility of knowing what the laws are, whether they are criminal or civil laws. It is not a defense to the imposition of punitive damages in a tort case, for example, that the defendant did not know that he might be subject to a larger damages award if he acted with intentional or reckless disregard for other people’s rights or lives. That ignorance of the law is not an excuse is a large part of the reason for the existence of legal advisers and the legal profession in general.
Thomas points out that in a previous cases, the Court has distinguished between a “willfulness” requirement, which requires proof of actual knowledge, and a “knowledge” requirement, as to which either actual or constructive knowledge normally may suffice. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201–203 (1991); Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U. S. ___ (2020) (slip op., at 6–7). Indeed, the Court has acknowledged that other “knowledge” requirements in the Copyright Act may be satisfied by either actual or constructive knowledge.
Reading between the lines a little, I think there is room for speculation that some members of the Court regard the prelitigation registration requirement as a formality which, as such, is not really in keeping with the spirit of international treaties calling for the abolition of copyright formalities. Rather than allow a formality to stand in the way of an attempt to enforce a copyright, it is conceivable that the Court chose to deploy its power of judicial interpretation to effect what it believed to be the most just result in this case.
Conclusion
Another old legal maxim I remember from law school is “Hard cases make bad law.” It is too soon to tell how the Court’s decision in this case will play out in practice, but the Court’s allowance of an infringement action to proceed despite the fact that the plaintiff provided false information (whether factual or legal) when securing the registration does seem to open a fairly large can of worms.
Of course, the Court’s decision does not rule out a dismissal of an infringement action if the defendant can prove that the plaintiff had actual knowledge that he or she was providing false information at the time of applying for registration. Actual knowledge, however, can be very difficult to prove.
More importantly, how much mileage are courts going to let people get out of a claim that they did not know the law when they applied for registration? For example, will a person who purchases a copy of a book and then files an application to register the copyright in it be allowed to proceed with an infringement claim because he “did not know” that merely buying a copy of a work does not amount to a purchase of the copyright? (cf. Dune It Wrong.)
Of course, copyright ownership can still be disputed in an infringement proceeding even after the Court’s decision in this case. Except in the rare case where it can be proven that an applicant actually knew his works did not qualify for the kind of registration application he used, however, it seems like the Court’s decision opens up the copyright registration application process to a great deal of potential abuse, at least when the “error” is not obvious enough for the Copyright Office to detect from the face of the application itself.
Once again, I would suggest that perhaps Congress should just consider abolishing the pre-litigation registration requirement.
