Chicken sandwich not protected by copyright, rules US court
A US appeals court has rejected claims that a chicken sandwich is protected by copyright and has ruled that South American Restaurants Corporation (SARCO) did not fraudulently obtain a trademark for the sandwich's name.
In a nine-page ruling, Judge Jeffrey Howard of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed Norberto-Colón Lorenzana’s claim that SARCO misappropriated his intellectual property rights.
The sandwich, known as the ‘Pechu sandwich’, consists of a fried chicken breast topped with lettuce, tomato, cheese and garlic mayonnaise on a bun.
Lorenzana claimed he invented the sandwich after he started working at SARCO in Puerto Rico in 1987. He suggested the idea to his employers, while working for the company, he claimed. SARCO started selling the Pechu sandwich in 1991.
In 2006, SARCO obtained a US trademark for the term ‘Pechusandwich’ covering chicken breast sandwiches.
The registered trademark is just one word and was cancelled in 2013.
Lorenzana sued SARCO claiming he should be due profits from the sandwich.
He said that he owns the copyright to the sandwich and that SARCO fraudulently obtained the ‘Pechusandwich’ trademark by claiming it invented the snack.
But in 2014 the US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico rejected Lorenzana’s claim. Lorenzana then appealed against the decision at the first circuit.
Dismissing the claim, Howard said Lorenzana failed to present any evidence that SARCO presented false information to the US Patent and Trademark Office in applying for the trademark.
Instead, he “merely offers conjecture about SARCO’s actions and intentions”, Howard said.
On the question of copyright ownership, Howard said 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,” he added.
The question of copyright ownership for recipes has been raised before.
In February, the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed restaurant owner Rosemarie Carroll’s claim that her copyright had been infringed after she alleged a rival was using her recipes for certain dishes.
The district court rejected Carroll’s claims, stating that “recipes are functional directions for achieving a result and are excluded from copyright protection”.
