Appeals Court: No, You Can't Copyright A Chicken Sandwich

from the though-you-can-indict-a-ham-sandwich dept

There’s a famous line about grand juries and their willingness to indict anything prosecutors put in from of them, that they will “indict a ham sandwich” (coined by a judge who was later indicted himself in an effort to prove the point). But, someone apparently asked, can you copyright a chicken sandwich? This apparently serious legal question was recently taken up by the First Circuit appeals court to review a dispute about who owns the idea for a chicken sandwich.

The backstory is that a guy named Norbeto Colon Lorenzana, working for Church’s Chicken (owned by South American Restaurant Corporation, or SARCO) in Puerto Rico, thought that the restaurant should add a chicken sandwich to the menu. His bosses tested out some recipes and settled on the following recipe (which does not seem all that original): “a fried chicken breast patty, lettuce, tomato, American cheese, and garlic mayonnaise on a bun.” Church’s dubbed this the “Pechu Sandwich” and apparently it sold pretty well at Church’s Chicken. Colon apparently decided that because it was his idea, he deserved a cut of every sale. And thus he sued for trademark and copyright violations (sorta, as you’ll see)… because popular culture keeps falsely telling people that “intellectual property” must “protect” any possible “idea” they ever come up with, no matter how common or obvious it is, and no matter whether or not those ideas are even remotely protectable.

The lower court correctly laughed this out of court, and Colon appealed, only to find the appeals court similarly unamused. Not surprisingly, apparently Colon’s original complaint was so devoid of actual legal arguments that the court decided to “generously glean a claim for violations of the Copyright Act and a second claim under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement.” As the ruling notes in a footnote, Colon didn’t actually state either such thing, but the court said he claim close enough, and then in a reply to the company’s motion to dismiss, Colon clearly was relying on copyright law, so it’s a “copyright claim” even if the original complaint failed to make such a claim. The court also notes that “Colon does not seize upon the generosity of the district court and fails to develop any argument in his appellate briefing related to trademark infringement,” so it drops the (bogus) trademark arguments entirely.

Either way, even with the court “generously” saying there’s a copyright claim, there isn’t actually a copyright claim, because this is a freaking chicken sandwich.

Contrary to Col?n’s protests on appeal, the district court properly determined that a chicken sandwich is not eligible for copyright protection. This makes good sense; neither the recipe nor the name Pechu Sandwich fits any of the eligible categories and, therefore, protection under the Copyright Act is unwarranted. A recipe — or any instructions — listing the combination of chicken, lettuce, tomato, cheese, and mayonnaise on a bun to create a sandwich is quite plainly not a copyrightable work…. As for the “Pechu Sandwich” moniker, we have previously held that “copyright protection simply does not extend to ‘words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans.'”

The court separately rejects Colon’s claim that SARCO registered the trademark in the sandwich by fraud (apparently in not giving it to him or something). The court again has trouble figuring out what he means, because he has no explanation:

We need not linger over the potential elements of a Section 38 claim or the application of Rule 9(b) because the complaint fails for a more fundamental reason. It simply fails to sufficiently allege that any false statement exists. Colon merely offers conjecture about SARCO’s actions and intentions. He avers that SARCO “intentionally, willfully, fraudulently and maliciously procured the registration of Plaintiff’s creation in the Patent and Trademark Office without his consent and . . . with the intent to injure the Plaintiffs,” but the complaint is silent as to any facts to support such conclusions.

These kinds of lawsuits are what you get when you keep telling people that ideas are “ownable” and that anyone who does anything with your idea must be somehow infringing on your rights. Thankfully, the courts have quickly dumped this, but it’s still a waste of time and resources.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: church's chicken, sarco

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Appeals Court: No, You Can't Copyright A Chicken Sandwich”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Patents?

Patents are definitely the way to go for chicken sandwiches. Not copyright.

The careful USPTO examination process makes use of a room full of kittens with “PATENT GRANTED” stamps affixed to their feet.

I hear you not only can patent a method of swinging in a circular motion on a public park swing, but you can also patent rectangles with rounded corners. Bouncy scrolling. The possibilities are endless. Why not chicken sandwiches.

The Eastern District of Texas is definitely the venue to use in order to get the vast rewards you are entitled to for having the creative boldness and innovative genius to conceive of a chicken sandwich.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Patents?

Also it’s a bit rich sending someone to wikipedia with link text that says THEY are lazy. Also the Berne Convention was signed in 1886, you’re looking at a duration directive from 1993.(that wiki page does not contain the word fixed either, or form, or tangible, so therefore doesn’t prove your point)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Patents?

It’s called the Berne Convention Implementation Act 1988.

I think you need to re-read House Report 94-1476 (Sept 3, 1976) which concerns itself with the Copyright Act of 1976. As is customary, the House Report begins with the text of the bill (S.22) then under consideration.

Pay good attention to the (amended) § 102.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Patents?

If a chicken sandwich can be fixed in a tangible medium, then is the resultant output, after consumption, considered a derivative work? If so, then said output is copyright-able as well, isn’t it?

Does there have to be a forensic analysis of said output to confirm the original tangible medium? What happens if something else was consumed at the same time, does that taint the resultant output to such a degree that any forensic analysis becomes mute?

God is copyright a mess.

Oh yeah, what happens if the chicken is overcooked, is that tangible or derivative?

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If chicken sandwiches can be copyrighted, then what you are referring to is actually a derivative work under copyright law. See the recent article about copyrighting pictures of food.

If the pictures can be copyrighted, why not the food itself?

Why not the derivative works that flow from the result of consuming it? (“flow” may be the wrong word?)

Isn’t this the very substance of what copyright law is about?

Sheogorath (profile) says:

[Colon’s] bosses tested out some recipes and settled on the following recipe (which does not seem all that original): “a fried chicken breast patty, lettuce, tomato, American cheese, and garlic mayonnaise on a bun.”
My family makes those all the time at home, apart from not knowing the nationality of the cheese (cheese slices from a packet). We never thought of a fanciful name like ‘Pechu Sandwich’, though. We just call them chickburgers.

Anonymous Coward says:

No need to evaluate copyright/trademark/patent here

Norbeto Colon Lorenzana worked for the company when he came up with the idea of the chicken sandwich.

Therefore it was a work for hire and as such any “rights” of said idea belong to the company not Norbeto.

Had Norbeto not had his head up his middle name all of this woud have been obvious.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No need to evaluate copyright/trademark/patent here

…Norbeto Colon Lorenzana worked for the company when he came up with the idea of the chicken sandwich.

Therefore it was a work for hire and as such any “rights” of said idea belong to the company not Norbeto…

Good point but brings up the question: which company?

This is a franchise business. Who gets the rights: the franchisor or the franchisee?

DannyB (profile) says:

Chicken Sandwich in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey

I seem to remember some astronauts traveling from a moonbase to a remote location in some type of transport. It was time to eat. They opened a container. It had several types of (copyrighted) sandwiches.

One of them was a Chicken Sandwich.

Or maybe not…

“Anybody hungry?”
[Rummaging] “What’s that, chicken?”
“Something like that. Tastes the same anyway.”
“Got any ham?”
[Rummaging] “Ham, ham, ham…”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...