Atc Distribution Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc.
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5059, 402 F.3d 700, 74 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1161 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parts catalog, including its numbering system and illustrations, lacks the requisite originality for copyright protection if its classification scheme is an uncopyrightable idea, its arrangement is mechanical or routine, and its illustrations are slavish copies of existing images.
Facts:
- In 1994, ATC Distribution Group, Inc. (ATC)'s predecessor acquired Hester Transmission Parts (HTP), along with its catalog and the services of its employee, Kenny Hester.
- In 1995, ATC published a new transmission parts catalog, developed by Hester, which was based on a pre-existing catalog from a printing company named McCarty.
- The illustrations in the ATC catalog were sketches created by an artist who copied photographs from a competitor's catalog.
- The catalog's part numbering system organized parts by brand, transmission type, and part type, with gaps left for future additions, but the assignment of numbers within categories was essentially random.
- In October 1999, Hester left ATC and formed a rival company, Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc. (WITT).
- WITT hired several of ATC's other employees (the "North Carolina Defendants").
- Hester obtained an electronic copy of the ATC catalog and created a nearly identical catalog for WITT's internal use, also using ATC's part numbers in advertising.
- When the North Carolina Defendants left ATC, they took copies of customer lists and reports of accounts receivable.
Procedural Posture:
- ATC Distribution Group, Inc. sued Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc. (WITT), Kenneth Hester, and other former employees in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
- The complaint alleged twelve counts, including copyright infringement, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- All parties moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on most claims, including the copyright infringement claim, finding the catalog and its parts lacked the originality required for protection.
- ATC, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on seven of its claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parts catalog consisting of a functional numbering system, copied illustrations, and a commonplace arrangement of data possess the requisite originality for copyright protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Boggs
No, the catalog, its component parts, and its numbering system do not possess the requisite originality for copyright protection. To qualify for copyright, a work must be independently created and possess at least a minimal degree of creativity. Here, the catalog fails this test in several respects. First, the parts-classification scheme is an uncopyrightable idea or system under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). While classification can be creative, ATC's method of categorization is an unprotectable idea, and its expression (the specific part numbers) merges with that idea because there is essentially only one way to express it. The specific numbers assigned were arbitrary and lacked any creative expression. Second, the catalog as a compilation is not protectable because its selection and arrangement of data are mechanical and routine, lacking the creativity required by Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. The arrangement is commonplace and practically inevitable for the industry. Third, the illustrations are unoriginal because they are slavish copies intended to be as accurate as possible, which is the antithesis of originality, and their arrangement in order of assembly/disassembly is a standard, uncreative practice.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principles from Feist, clarifying that functional works like parts catalogs receive very thin, if any, copyright protection. It establishes that a logical classification system is an unprotectable 'idea,' and the resulting part numbers are not creative 'expression' if they are randomly or mechanically assigned. The case serves as a strong precedent against attempts to use copyright law to monopolize functional data compilations or numbering systems that lack creative selection or arrangement, emphasizing that the 'sweat of the brow' in creating a useful work does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of originality.
