Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-571_e29f.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

FOURTH ESTATE PUB. BENEFIT CORP. v.
WALL-STREET.COM, LLC 
Opinion of the Court 

have  eliminated  registration  or  tied  it  to  the  copyright
claimant’s application instead of the Register’s action.5 

Fourth Estate additionally argues that, as “registration
is  not  a  condition  of  copyright  protection,”  17  U. S. C. 
§408(a),  §411(a)  should  not  be  read  to  bar  a  copyright 
claimant  from  enforcing  that  protection  in  court  once  she
has submitted a proper application for registration.  Brief 
for Petitioner 37.  But as explained supra, at 3, the Copy-
right  Act  safeguards  copyright  owners,  irrespective  of 
registration,  by  vesting  them  with  exclusive  rights  upon
creation of their works and prohibiting infringement from 
that  point  forward.    If  infringement  occurs  before  a  copy-
right owner applies for registration, that owner may even-
tually  recover  damages  for  the  past  infringement,  as  well 
as the infringer’s profits.  §504.  She must simply apply for 
registration and receive the Copyright Office’s decision on
her application before instituting suit.  Once the Register 
grants  or  refuses  registration,  the  copyright  owner  may 
also seek an injunction barring the infringer from  contin-
ued  violation  of  her  exclusive  rights  and  an  order  requir-
ing  the  infringer  to  destroy  infringing  materials.    §§502,
503(b).

Fourth Estate maintains, however, that if infringement 
occurs  while  the  Copyright  Office  is  reviewing  a  registra-
tion application, the registration approach will deprive the
owner  of  her  rights  during  the  waiting  period.    Brief  for 
Petitioner  41.  See  also  1  P.  Goldstein,  Copyright  §3.15, 

—————— 

5 Fourth  Estate  asserts  that,  if  a  copyright  owner  encounters  a 
lengthy  delay  in  the  Copyright  Office,  she  may  be  forced  to  file  a 
mandamus action to compel the Register to rule on her application, the 
very  problem  exposed  in  Vacheron  &  Constantin-Le  Coultre  Watches, 
Inc.  v.  Benrus  Watch  Co.,  260  F.  2d  637  (CA2  1958),  see  supra,  at  8. 
But  Congress’  answer  to  Vacheron,  codified  in  §411(a)’s  second  sen-
tence, was to permit an infringement suit upon refusal of registration, 
not  to  eliminate  Copyright  Office  action  as  the  trigger  for  an  infringe-
ment suit.