Opinion ID: 406740
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fraud and Unclean Hands

Text: 24 Lawson's third defense is that Roberts is guilty of fraud and unclean hands in failing to supply certain relevant information on the copyright application. Specifically, Lawson cites Roberts' failure to list Ms. Morehead as a co-author and his failure to complete item six on the copyright application headed Compilation or Derivative Work as the fraudulent omissions which make OAA's copyright unenforceable. 25 In Russ Berrie & Co., Inc. v. Jerry Elsner Co., 482 F.Supp. 980 (S.D.N.Y.1980), the court found that the copyright holder had intentionally failed to inform the copyright office that his copyrighted stuffed gorilla was based on a pre-existing Japanese gorilla, and held that the knowing failure to advise the copyright office of facts which might have occasioned a rejection of the application constitutes reason for holding the copyright invalid. Id. at 988. Similar situations occurred in Vogue Ring Creations, Inc. v. Hardman, 410 F.Supp. 609 (D.R.I.1976) (unexplained omission of pre-existing work coupled with other misleading conduct made copyright unenforceable); and Ross Products, Inc. v. New York Merchandise Co., 242 F.Supp. 878 (S.D.N.Y.1965) (failure to indicate prior publication of work in Japan raised issue of whether omission was purposeful thus invalidating copyright). 26 While these cases establish that omissions or misrepresentations in a copyright application can render the registration invalid, a common element among them has been intentional or purposeful concealment of relevant information. Where this element of scienter is lacking, courts generally have upheld the copyright. See Advisers, Inc. v. Wiesen-Hart, Inc., 238 F.2d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 1956) (innocent misstatement ... in the affidavit and certificate of registration, unaccompanied by fraud does not invalidate copyright); Ross Products, supra, 242 F.Supp. at 879 (cases overlooking omissions or misstatements emphasize that the errors involved were honest, innocent and not intended to be misleading.). See also Mitchell Brothers Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852, 863 (5th Cir. 1979) (doctrine of unclean hands does not bar relief unless defendant can show he has personally been injured by plaintiff's conduct). 27 The evidence in this case fails to show the scienter element necessary for Lawson to assert his claim successfully. Roberts explained that his omission of Morehead as a co-author was due to Morehead's leaving the doll operation in February 1978 and indicating she wanted nothing further to do with the company. Given that Roberts freely admitted he and Morehead had collaborated on the dolls, and that several newspaper and magazine articles during 1977 indicated that the dolls were the joint product of Roberts and Morehead, we find it impossible to ascribe to this omission an intent to mislead. As to item 6, the pre-existing works, the undisputed evidence showed that Roberts and Allen completed this item initially in some detail, even indicating that the dolls were derived in part from viewing other artists' soft-sculpture work. 8 Although item 6 was left blank in the application that finally was filed with the copyright office, the sole reason for this omission was that after speaking to copyright office personnel, Roberts and Allen thought that the information was unnecessary. 9 Accordingly, we reject Lawson's assertion that OAA's copyright is unenforceable due to fraud on the copyright office.