Taylor Instrument Companies v. Fawley-Brost Co.
1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2205, 59 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 384, 139 F.2d 98 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copyright protection is limited to the expression of an idea, such as an explanation or description, and does not extend to a useful article or system itself, which is the exclusive domain of patent law.
Facts:
- Plaintiff manufactures and sells a recording thermometer that uses a circular paper chart to create a graphical record of temperature over time.
- The chart, containing specific arc and circular lines, is an indispensable and integral mechanical element of the machine, without which it cannot function.
- Plaintiff prints its copyright notice and its registered trademark 'Taylor' on the charts it manufactures.
- Defendant, Fawley-Brost Co., manufactures and sells charts designed as replacements for use in Plaintiff's machines.
- Defendant admittedly copies the functional arc and circular lines from Plaintiff's charts onto its own.
- Defendant does not copy Plaintiff's trademark or copyright notice, instead printing its own name, 'Fawley-Brost Co., Chicago,' on its products.
- On some charts, Defendant also prints the letter 'T' to indicate they are designed for use on a machine manufactured by the Plaintiff.
- Defendant also used the symbol 'Tay' and the word 'Taylor' in advertising materials and a private letter to indicate its charts were compatible with Plaintiff's machines.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Defendant, Fawley-Brost Co., in a federal trial court.
- The lawsuit alleged copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.
- Defendant counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff's charts were not copyrightable.
- The trial court decided all issues in favor of the Plaintiff and entered an interlocutory judgment.
- Defendant, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
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 chart that serves as an essential, functional, and integral mechanical element of a recording machine qualify for copyright protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Major
No. A chart that is an essential, functional component of a machine is a useful article not subject to copyright protection. The court, relying heavily on Baker v. Selden, distinguished between copyrightable works of 'explanation' and patentable works of 'use.' Copyright protects 'the writings of an author' which teach or convey information, while patent law protects 'any new and useful art, machine, manufacture.' The court found that the plaintiff's chart does not teach or explain the art of recording temperature; rather, it is an essential, mechanical part of the art itself, indispensable to the machine's operation. To grant copyright protection to such a functional object would improperly extend a monopoly over a useful article, circumventing the rigorous examination and limited duration of the patent system, which would be a 'surprise and a fraud upon the public.'
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the fundamental principle of the useful article doctrine, established in Baker v. Selden, which draws a strict boundary between copyright and patent law. It clarifies that functional components of a machine, even if they contain graphic elements, cannot be protected by copyright because their purpose is utilitarian, not expressive. The ruling prevents creators from using the longer term of copyright to achieve a perpetual monopoly on unpatented or expired-patent inventions. This case is a foundational example of the idea-expression dichotomy, holding that copyright protects the description of an art, but not the art itself.
