Page:Historic Block Logo (USCO Review Board, 2022).pdf/4

Christopher M. Verdini, Esq. K&L Gates LLP two unlinked letters facing each other in a mirror image did not contain the requisite level of creativity); John Muller & Co, Ine. v. NY Arrows Soccer Team, 802 F.2d 989, 990 (8th Cir. 1986) (affirming the refusal to register a logo consisting of four irregularly spaced angled lines with the word "Arrow" in cursive script below because it was insufficiently creative). The Office has also stated that it "typically refuses" to register logos "that consist of only [m]ere scripting or lettering, either with or without uncopyrightable ornamentation," as these works do not qualify for copyright protection.  § 914.1. Nor does the thin white line that is the byproduct of the negative space between the two "W"s transform the Work into something more creative. For these reasons, the Work's selection, coordination, and arrangement do not satisfy the sufficient level of creativity required for copyright.

WWE makes several additional arguments for why the Work should be registered, including that "[a] series of creative choices were made in creating the Logo," providing a list of the "unique combination of choices made." First Request at 3. The Office, however, "will not consider possible design alternatives that the author may have considered when he or she created the work The creative process often requires many choices involving the size, coloring, orientation, proportion, configuration, perspective, or other constituent elements of the work." § 310.8; see also id. § 310.2 ("[T]he U.S. Copyright Office does not consider the aesthetic value, artistic merit, or intrinsic quality of a work."). WWE also encourages the Board to consider the analysis of a prior registration "of [a]nother [s]tylized [f]orm of WWE's WWF Logo" shown below. Second Request at 4.

The Board arrives at its determinations by looking at the specifics of the case before it, and will not compare previously registered works when examining a work for sufficient creativity. See § 309.3; see also Homer Laughlin China Co. v. Oman, No. 90 Civ. 3160, 1991 WL 154540, at *2 (D.D.C. July 30, 1991) (stating that court was not aware of "any authority which provides that the Register must compare works when determining whether a submission is copyrightable"). "A decision to register a particular work has no precedential