The 4th U. S Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s ruling, denying the claim of an artist, who had alleged the hundreds of defendants unfairly benefitted from a logo he created, which was ultimately used by the Baltimore Ravens.
In so ruling, the court found that plaintiff Frederick Bouchat was barred from obtaining actual damages from the licensees by the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion and that he was ineligible to receive statutory damages because of his failure to register his copyright before the infringement began.
The appeals court wrote that Bouchat created a logo on December 5, 2005, and sent in to the Ravens that winter. Several months later, his logo was “officially chosen” and outside artists were hired to apply the finishing touches. On April 1, 2006, the plaintiff faxed his drawing to Ravens management and asked for a letter of recognition and an autographed helmet.
In June of 2006, the NFL began licensing logo for the creation of merchandise. A month later, Bouchat registered his drawing with the U.S. Copyright Office.
In May 1997 Bouchat filed a copyright infringement action against the Ravens and NFLP in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc. (Bouchat I), No. MJG-97-1470. He alleged that the (Ravens logo) infringed his copyright in the Shield drawing and that the defendants had earned profits from licensing the infringing work. After netting a partial victory at the district court level, his claim was defeated by the 4th Circuit.
In the meantime, Bouchat brought four additional actions, which are the subject of this appeal, against several hundred “downstream defendants” for copyright infringement. Bouchat described these downstream defendants as “NFL-related entities . . . who utilized the infringing work in advertisements, publishers of game day magazines, broadcast and media entities which licensed the use of the infringing logo,” and makers of video games, trading cards, and other products that displayed the Ravens’ Flying B.
The latter claim was doomed because of the timing of the plaintiff’s registration.
“We hold that a copyright owner may not obtain statutory damages from a licensee liable jointly and severally with a licensor when the licensor’s first infringing act occurred before registration and was part of the same line of related infringements that included the licensee’s offending act,” held the panel of judges.
“Our holding flows from the statute’s plain language. Moreover, our holding has the added benefit of respecting Congress’s purpose for enacting § 412, which is to encourage speedy registration. If we ignored this purpose and construed the Copyright Act to allow Bouchat to obtain the “extraordinary remed[y]” of statutory damages for acts that occurred long after he registered his copyright, we would discourage rather than promote swift registration of creative works. See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 at 158. In sum, we conclude that the district court correctly awarded the licensees a summary judgment denying Bouchat’s claim for statutory damages.”
Bouchat v. Bon-Ton Dept. Stores et al.; 4th Cir.; No. 03-2173; 10/17/07
Attorneys of Record: (for Plaintiff-Appellant) Howard J. Schulman, Schulman & Kaufman, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland; George Beall, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland. (for Defendants-Appellees) Robert Lloyd Raskopf, White & Case, New York, New York; Marc E. Ackerman, White & Case, New York, New York.
