Catalog Numbers and Illustrations Not Protected by Copyright According to Sixth Circuit

A transmission parts company suing its former employees for copyright infringement of an auto parts catalog had a rough ride before the Sixth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals in ATC Distrib. Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes (6th Circuit, 03/30/05 - No. 03-6505). The plaintiff, ATC, had sued former employees for copyright infringement for use of ATC's auto parts catalog. The Sixth Circuit held that plaintiff's numbering scheme, illustrations and manual were not sufficiently original for copyright protection.

With respect to the parts numbering scheme, the court noted that the numbering scheme could have reflected originality in how many numbers were reserved for future parts. However, the court found that the expression of the idea could not be protected because it merged with the idea of how many numbers should be reserved:

The expression of ATC’s ideas about part classification and the future of the transmission parts market is not barred from copyright protection by the idea-expression distinction. It is barred, however, in part by the “merger doctrine,” and in part by the originality requirement. For almost all of the types of creativity claimed by ATC, there is only one reasonable way to express the underlying idea. For example, the only way to express the prediction that a maximum of four additional types of sealing ring might be developed is to leave four numbers unallocated, and the only way to express the idea that a novel part should
be placed with the sealing rings rather than with the gaskets is to place that part with the sealing rings. Under the merger doctrine, “when there is essentially only one way to express an idea, the idea and its expression are inseparable [i.e., they merge,] and copyright is no bar to copying that expression.”

The plaintiff fared no better on its claim that illustrations of transmissions from its catalog had been illegally copied. The Sixth Circuit noted that the illustrations were "slavishly" copied from photographs, and were not original even though they required skill to draw. The court further held that the arrangement of showing parts in order of assembly or disassembly was not original and not protected by copyright.

Finally, on its copyright claim regarding its parts manual, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court that the manual was not protected because it was no more than a quick reference guide to the part numbers.

Plaintiff ATC fared no better on its other claims against its competing former employees. On preemption, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court that "ATC’s state law claims alleging the appropriation by Appellees of ATC’s intellectual property rights in its catalog, part numbers, or illustrations are preempted by federal copyright law." Preemption occurred despite the holding that federal copyright law did not give protection to the catalog. Without preemption, state law could expand protection to areas that federal law has determined should not be protected because it is in the public domain.

The Sixth Circuit also upheld summary judgment against ATC's trade secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with business relations claims.