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 Colón'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.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st circuit, chicken, chicken sandwich, copyright, noberto colon lorenzana, ownership society, pechu sandwich, recipes, trademark
Companies: church's chicken, sarco


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    OnTheWaterfront, 25 Aug 2015 @ 10:43am

    Shiiiiat man that ain't no thang but a chicken wang on a string.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    DannyB (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 10:50am

    Patents?

    Patents anyone?

    Still, once a chicken sandwich is fixed in a tangible medium, then doesn't the creative expression of the chick sandwich become eligible for copyright?

    C'mon, RIAA? MPAA? Call your lobbyists.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 10:58am

    Colon, what an appropriate name for someone who is full oh shit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 10:59am

    Re:

    We goin Siiiiiizler. We goin Siiiiiizler.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    DannyB (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 11:03am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    DannyB (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 11:07am

    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 11:12am

    Q: Why did the chicken sandwich cross the road?

    A: "Because those guys are morons" said the chicken.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    sorrykb (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 11:27am

    Re:

    Anonymous Coward wrote:
    Q: Why did the chicken sandwich cross the road?

    A: "Because those guys are morons" said the chicken.

    Careful with your derivative work there, or the author of the original chicken-road joke will sue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    sorrykb (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Patents?

    The careful USPTO examination process makes use of a room full of kittens with "PATENT GRANTED" stamps affixed to their feet.
    Thanks a lot. Now I can't be angry at the patent office for their foolishness, because when I think of them I imagine kittens.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 11:37am

    [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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 11:40am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    radarmonkey (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 11:42am

    WTF? This clown didn't start working for the chain until 1987. I was making Chicken Sandwiches in 1985 at Wendy's!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 11:44am

    Re: Re:

    If the pictures can be copyrighted, why not the food itself?
    The food is copyrighted in Germany, that's why photographs are banned as 'unauthorised derivative works'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    pegr, 25 Aug 2015 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Patents?

    >Still, once a chicken sandwich is fixed in a tangible medium, then doesn't the creative expression of the chick sandwich become eligible for copyright?

    It does in Germany:

    http://www.eater.com/2015/8/14/9153029/instagram-food-porn-copyright-law-germany

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Re: Patents?

    That's what's so stupid about the German law; food can't be 'fixed' in any medium. It's either eaten, gets binned, or it rots. Totally asinine!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 1:25pm

    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    DannyB (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 2:20pm

    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…"

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 2:37pm

    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 2:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    Does German law say "Fixed" or "Medium"?
    The stupid, asinine part is transposing one countries law over anothers.
    US law says Fixed in a Medium , I haven't seen it anywhere else.
    German law says "made available to the public", for example.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 3:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    US law says Fixed in a Medium, I haven't seen it anywhere else.
    UK law says fixed in tangible form, and since the Berne Convention from which that phrase is derived has been made law all across Europe... Ignorance is not a reasonable excuse for lack of knowledge.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. icon
    John Mitchell (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 3:33pm

    A recipe for scrambled eggs can be copyrighted

    Lest anyone take too literally the notion that you can't copyright a recipe, there is a copyrighted work entitled "Copyrighted Recipe for Scrambled Eggs" -- see http://www.moosemanorfarms.com/egg-recipes.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 4:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    Sorry, they couldn't use kittens to mark this chicken sandwich as granted. By the time the kittens were done, large portions of the example sandwich that has been submitted had been consumed.

    ...and the patent on "kitten-chewed bread sandwich" had already expired.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 6:09pm

    if he succeeded, what would have become of kfc?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 6:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    UK law says no such thing, neither does the Berne convention from what I can see.
    Wikipedia says "fixed" about the Berne convention but it's in inverted commas.
    i'm happy to be proven wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 7:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    BTW, you know the thing that gave Americans automatic copyright? It's called the Berne Convention Implementation Act 1988. I wonder why?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 7:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    You haven't proven anything there buddy. That UK link doesn't contain what you think it does.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 7:54pm

    Re:

    KFC would be considered prior art and the patent would be
    thrown across the street.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 8:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 8:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    I've read the UK act and the original Berne of 1886 as well as the 71 revision.
    I'm asking you to prove you are right, partly so that you read them yourself as they don't use the term you say that do.
    I'm not ignorant or lazy, and I'm not wrong either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 8:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 8:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    Okay, so if someone rips off something you wrote and says, "But you didn't register it for copyright!" I guess you'll just suck it up?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 9:00pm

    Re: A recipe for scrambled eggs can be copyrighted

    Except that the recipe isn't unique and still doesn't have a copyright. The extremely creative expression of the author's method, on the other hand...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 9:03pm

    Re: Re:

    I know a 7 year old that calls it the Kid Fattening Centre.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 25 Aug 2015 @ 9:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    It's 5:20 in the morning where I am. What's your excuse?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2015 @ 9:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    I'm just waiting for you to point to the place in German law where it uses the word fixed in tangible form like you said it did. I don't care that you're losing sleep over it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 12:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    … just suck it up?
    That's an interesting choice of words. I don't understand your motive here.

    Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. icon
    Seegras (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 3:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    Here http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/BJNR012730965.html#BJNR012730965BJNG000301377

    And §15 differentiates between "fixed" ("in körperlicher Form") and "non-fixed", but that's not related to eligibility.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 4:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents?

    (1) The author has the exclusive right to exploit his work in material form; this right shall in particular include...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 5:27am

    I thought the reason was "God owns the copyright on eggs".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. icon
    sorrykb (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 10:29am

    Re:

    Anonymous Coward wrote:
    I thought the reason was "God owns the copyright on eggs".

    Now you're bringing orphan works into it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. icon
    Bergman (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 8:08am

    Re: Patents?

    If anyone owns the rights to the tangible expression of the idea of a sandwich that would be John Montagu (b.1718, d.1792), the Fourth Earl of Sandwich.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montagu,_4th_Earl_of_Sandwich

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. identicon
    aman, 15 May 2019 @ 12:12am

    Great Post. Thanks

    Chicken sandwich is my favorite food item and I love to eat chicken sandwich only in KFC restaurants. Recently I won the chicken sandwich for free in KFC restaurant by participating in the My KFC experience survey. If you want to take mykfcexperience.com survey click on this official link - https://www.surveylookup.com/mykfcexperience/

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.