Dunhill’s Copyright Application Rejected for the Second Time

Alfred Dunhill Limited is a British luxury goods brand, specialising in ready-to-wear, custom and bespoke menswear, leather goods, and accessories. The company is based in London, where it also owns and operates a leather workshop.

Alfred Dunhill Limited earlier applied for copyright registration of its “Engine Turn” pattern. After getting rejected, Dunhill again applied before the Review Board for Registration. The Copyright Office's Review Board rejected the application the second time. The Review Board relied upon a decision in Feist Pubs, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. Under 17 U.S.C. Section 102 (a) work may be registered if it qualifies as an original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. The term originally consists of two elements and they are independent creation and sufficient creativity.

The question, in this case, is about the pattern of fabric design. Dunhill applied for diamonds repeated in symmetrical rows and columns. This appears on everything from Dunhill card cases and belts to sneakers and duffle bags.

In the second request, they pointed out that the work of “Engine Turn” has sufficient creative authorship and amply meets the minimal test of authorship. Additionally, Dunhill said that the placement of the brown diamond creates an impression of three-dimensional negative space on a two-dimensional fabric. Dunhill compared this effect to two works registered on the second appeal.

Karyn A. Temple, Director of U.S. Copyright Office, determined that the menswear brand’s 2-dimensional fabric design is ineligible for copyright registration. The Work does not contain the requisite originality necessary to sustain a claim to copyright. The Review Board stated that the level of originality and creativity needed to warrant copyright registration is not fulfilled in accordance with too U.S. Law.

The Board also stated that the individual elements, diamonds and a six-sided arrowhead-shaped polygon, are un-copyrightable standard geometric shapes. The law says that familiar designs cannot be registered. The Court stated, there can be no copyright in a work in which the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually non-existent.

Dunhill cited many precedents of the Board's decision on American Airlines Flight Symbol to support their three dimensional and optical illusion created by the arrangement and colouring. After reviewing the application, deposit copy, and relevant correspondence, along with the arguments in the second request for reconsideration, the Board affirmed the Registration Program’s denial of registration.