Court Opinion

ID: 2963650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:29.960903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:24.540698
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 21, 1995    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1366

                                   GILBERTO ARVELO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                      AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

               Celso E. Lopez and Peter John Porrata for appellant.
               ______________     __________________
               Lisa E. Bhatia Gautier with whom Pinto-Lugo & Rivera was on
               ______________________           ___________________
          brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per curiam.  The plaintiff  Gilberto Arvelo brought
                      __________

            suit   against  the  American   International  Insurance  Co.

            ("AIIC"),   claiming  that   AIIC  committed   copyright  and

            trademark infringement and  engaged in unfair  competition by

            using  the designation  "Retail  Plus"    a  label which  the

            parties stipulate was conceived  by Arvelo   as the  title of

            one of  its insurance policies, without  Arvelo's permission.

            The district court granted summary judgment in favor of AIIC.

            Arvelo appealed,  but only with respect to the disposition of

            his  copyright claim.  We affirm, largely on the basis of the

            district  court's opinion.  See Arvelo v. American Int'l Ins.
                                        ___ ______    ___________________

            Co., 875 F. Supp. 95, 95-101 (D.P.R. 1995).
            ___

                      We add the following.  It is undisputed that it was

            Arvelo  who came up with the title "Retail Plus," that Arvelo

            presented the  idea to  AIIC  as part  of a  proposal for  an

            advertising campaign,  that  the proposal  was rejected,  and

            that  AIIC nevertheless used  "Retail Plus" as  the title for

            one  of its  insurance policies without  Arvelo's permission.

            It  is  also  undisputed  that  the  only  alleged  copyright
                                                 ____

            infringement was AIIC's unauthorized  use of the name "Retail

            Plus" as the title of one of its insurance policies. There is

            no contention that AIIC copied any other portion of  Arvelo's

            advertising campaign, which itself was copyrighted by Arvelo.

            The dispositive issue, therefore, is whether the name "Retail

                                         -2-
                                          2

            Plus"  standing  alone   is  subject  to  federal   copyright

            protection.  The answer is clearly no.

                      It  is a  basic proposition  of copyright  law that

            mere  words  and  short phrases,  even  if  they  occur in  a

            copyrighted work,  do not themselves enjoy protection against

            copying.   See, e.g., Arica  Institute, Inc.  v. Palmer,  970
                       _________  ______________________     ______

            F.2d 1067,  1072-73 (2d  Cir. 1992)  (single words and  short

            phrases   in  copyrighted  text   not  copyrightable);  Magic
                                                                    _____

            Marketing, Inc. v. Mailing Servs. of Pittsburgh, Inc., 634 F.
            _______________    __________________________________

            Supp. 769, 771-72 (W.D. Pa. 1986) (noting that even "colorful

            descriptions, such as  advertising slogans, are  not accorded

            copyright protection").   The non-copyrightability  of titles
                                                                   ______

            in  particular has  been  authoritatively  established.   See
                                                                      ___

            generally  1 Melville  B. Nimmer  & David  Nimmer, Nimmer  on
            _________                                          __________

            Copyright    2.16, at 185-86 (1995 ed.)  ("It is . . . clear,
            _________

            as  a matter of statutory construction by the courts (as well

            as Copyright  Office Regulations), that titles  may not claim

            statutory  copyright." (footnotes  omitted)).   The Copyright

            Office's  own interpretive regulations explicitly embrace the

            rule  of non-copyrightability for  names and titles.   See 37
                                                                   ___

            C.F.R.    202.1(a)  (1994) (listing  as  an  example of  non-

            copyrightable  material:  "Words and  short  phrases  such as

            names, titles, and slogans . . . .").

                      We reject Arvelo's contention that the rule against

            the copyrightability  of titles  does not apply  here because

                                         -3-
                                          3

            "Retail  Plus" was not the title of his copyrighted work (the
                                                ___

            advertising  campaign).  Whether or not "Retail Plus" was the

            title of  his advertising proposal,  it is clear  that Arvelo

            conceived  of that  name  as  the  proposed title  of  AIIC's

            insurance  policy.   In  any event,  the  name "Retail  Plus"

            standing alone, whether viewed  as a title or not,  is simply

            too   insubstantial  to   qualify   for   federal   copyright

            protection.   Cf. Alberto-Culver  Co. v. Andrea  Dumon, Inc.,
                          ___ ___________________    ___________________

            466  F.2d 705, 711 (7th Cir. 1972) (Stevens, J.) (finding not

            subject to copyright protection the commercial tag-line  "the

            most  personal sort of  deodorant," on ground  that such text

            "is  merely  a  'short  phrase or  expression'  which  hardly

            qualifies  as  an  'appreciable  amount  of  original  text'"

            (footnote  omitted)); Kitchens  of  Sara Lee,  Inc. v.  Nifty
                                  _____________________________     _____

            Foods  Corp., 266 F.2d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 1959) ("Brand names,
            ____________

            trade names, slogans, and  other short phrases or expressions

            cannot  be  copyrighted,  even  if  they  are   distinctively

            arranged or  printed.").  We add that Arvelo's assertion that

            he  put a substantial amount of effort into devising the name

            "Retail   Plus"   is   immaterial    to   the   question   of

            copyrightability.   See  Feist  Publications,  Inc. v.  Rural
                                ___  __________________________     _____

            Telephone Serv.  Co., 499 U.S. 340,  354-61 (1991) (rejecting
            ____________________

            the notion  that copyright protection can  be obtained merely

            through the "sweat of the brow").  It follows that AIIC could

                                         -4-
                                          4

            not have committed copyright  infringement by using the label

            "Retail Plus" as the title of one of its insurance policies.

                      Finally, we reject Arvelo's claim that the district

            court erred in denying his post-judgment motion to amend  its

            opinion with respect to  various factual particulars, as none

            of the  proposed amendments has  any material bearing  on the

            merits of Arvelo's copyright claim.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -5-
                                          5