Donald v. Uarco Business Forms

Decision Date30 January 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72-1463.,72-1463.
PartiesO. W. DONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UARCO BUSINESS FORMS, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Roy Gean, Jr., Fort Smith, Ark., for plaintiff-appellant.

Hofgren, Wegner, Allen, Stellman & McCord, Chicago, Ill., and P. D. Hardin, Fort Smith, Ark., for defendant-appellee.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting the appellee's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, D.C., 344 F.Supp. 338. The order followed a jury award of $7,000 to the appellant and against the appellee for copyright infringement.

The appellant obtained a copyright upon the following wording:

"AGREEMENT
"I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above described merchandise, with itemized repairs completed thereto. I promise to pay to the servicer, or order, in full, the amount listed as \'total\', on, or before the date listed as `terms\'. Title to said chattel, described hereon by model, make, and serial number, is hereby transferred to the servicer, for service, and or, materials used to repair said chattel. I offer this chattel in lieu of cash for services rendered, and agree not to misuse, secrete, sell, encumber, remove, or otherwise dispose of, or lose possession of said chattel, nor permit nor suffer any lien, encumbrance or charge against said chattel. There is no outstanding indebtedness, lien, mortgage, or other encumbrance against said chattel. I agree that should I fail to pay this indebtedness when due, or breach this contract, the entire unpaid balance shall at once become due and payable, and servicer may without notice, or demand, by law or otherwise, take possession of said chattel wherever located and retain all monies paid thereon for use of said chattel."

This wording was included on a form used by repair service companies. The copyright notice was printed at the bottom of each form.

The appellant sold a set of these forms to Jensen's T.V. & Appliance Store, a repair service company in Preston, Idaho. When Jensen's used the last of appellant's forms, it asked the appellee to print up a set of forms identical to appellant's forms. The appellee did so with a single modification — viz., the notice of appellant's copyright was omitted. The appellant discovered the fact that the appellee had reprinted his form, and brought this suit against it for copyright infringement. The trial court, notwithstanding the jury verdict, found that the copyrighted form did not have the requisite originality necessary for a valid copyright to exist.1 It found that the copyright was not valid and that, therefore, there was no infringement. We affirm.

The basic standard in copyright law is that only a minimal amount of creativity and originality is necessary to support a valid copyright. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, 191 F. 2d 99 (2nd Cir. 1951). Where a work is based on a work already in the public domain, a valid copyright may not exist in the new work unless it shows more than a trivial variation from the old work. Amsterdam v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 189 F.2d 104 (3rd Cir. 1951). However, if a work is independently created, it is entitled to a copyright even though it is identical to a work in the public domain. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, supra, 191 F.2d at 103; Fred Fisher, Inc. v. Dillingham, 298 F. 145, 149 (S.D.N.Y.1924).

We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the trial and the records of the lower court, and find that the appellant had knowledge of, and drew upon, legal forms which already existed in the public domain when he drafted his form. Most of the form is phrased in standard legal language. The appellant's testimony leads us to the conclusion that he had seen similar language many times before.

The basic issue is whether the appellant's form shows the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 12, 1977
    ...... determination of when there is substantial similarity between the forms of expression is necessarily more subtle and complex. As Judge Hand ...e., the product of the registrant. Donald v. Uarco Business Forms, 478 F.2d 764, 765-66 (8 Cir. 1973); Roth Greeting ......
  • Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 8, 1994
    ...See Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai-America, Inc., 546 F.Supp. 125, 143-44 (D.N.J.1982) (citing, inter alia, Donald v. Uarco Business Forms, 478 F.2d 764, 765 n. 1 (8th Cir.1973)). Nevertheless, any such discretion resides in the Copyright Office, not the applicant, for Section 410(a) suggests th......
  • Knickerbocker Toy Co., Inc. v. Winterbrook Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • September 30, 1982
    ...60 S.Ct. 681, 84 L.Ed. 825 (1940); Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp., supra at 1093, n. 3; O.W. Donald v. UARCO Business Forms, 478 F.2d 764, 765 (8th Cir.1973); Knickerbocker Toy Co., Inc. v. Etone International, Inc., 211 U.S.P.Q. 414, Copyright L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 25,344 (D.N.......
  • Selle v. Gibb
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • July 8, 1983
    ...Fe Railway Co., 254 F.Supp. 308, 309 (W.D.Mo.1966); Donald v. Uarco Business Forms, 344 F.Supp. 338, 339 (W.D.Ark.1972), aff'd, 478 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1973). In fact, the practice of a trial judge submitting the case to a jury for verdict, even though the evidence appears insufficient, is g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT