Bouchat V. Baltimore Ravens, Inc.

Case Citation: Bouchat V. Baltimore Ravens Inc., 99 F.2d 1617 (4thCir.2000)

Parties: Frederick Bouchat, Plaintiff/Appellee

Baltimore Ravens and NFL Properties, Defendant / Appellants

Facts: The Baltimore Ravens and NFL Properties used three drawings one being a shield that Frederick Bouchat had drawn; they used it as part of the new logo for the new Baltimore Ravens team. Frederick Bouchat had the shield drawing copyrighted.

Procedural History: The Plaintiff (Fredrick E. Bouchat) filed action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that the defendants (Baltimore Ravens, Inc. and National Football League Properties, Inc.) infringed his copyrights in three different drawings that Mr. Bouchat had drawn. One

of those drawings was of a shield that Mr. Bouchat had drawn in 1995 when he was working on a drawing for the New Baltimore Ravens football team. Mr. Bouchat claims that the defendants’ designer copied the drawing that was protected by Mr. Bouchat’s copyright that he has for it. The case was tried before a jury in October and November 1998. The jury ruled in the favor of Mr. Bouchat. “The defendants filed motion for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial as to the third drawing, contending that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants had access to Bouchat's drawing.” The district court denied the defendants motion in February of1999. In April 1999, the District Court certified several questions to the court which form the basis of this interlocutory appeal.

Issues:
Issue 1: Did the Plaintiff have enough proof of access or was he lacking what was required for his case?
Issue 2: Will the Fourth Circuit use the "strikingly similar" principle that was used in Gaste v. Kaiserman, 863 F.2d 1061, 1968 (2d Cir. 1988)?
Issue 3: Because the Plaintiff failed to note the original shield drawing on the copyright application, and the defendants failed to prove fraud or notify the copyright office of the facts that could have had the application rejected, should the copyright infringement claim be thrown out?
Issue 4: Was the Jury pressured by the court to reach its verdict?

Holdings:
Issue 1: No, there was no suitable evidence to infringe a copyright or the intermediary's chance to see that the work had already exists, therefore Bouchat's proof of access is legally suitable to withstand the jury's verdict in his favor.
Issue 2: Yes, the Fourth Circuit acknowledges that “striking similarity” is one way to prove access. Access remains a crucial part of a copyright infringement claim.
Issue 3: No, Neither the fact that Bouchat incorporated public domain elements in his drawing nor the fact that he did not expressly indicate on his application that such elements rendered his authorship of the drawing derivative in nature, invalidate the protection to which his drawing is otherwise entitled under his valid copyright registration. Unintentional but harmless mistakes in a copyright application do not subsequently preclude an infringement action against an alleged copier.
Issue 4: No, The district court told the jury that they did not want them to give their honest convictions about the case. Just because the jurors were actively encouraged to reach an agreement, it does not mean they were forced.

Decision:
Affirmed; based on the evidence, the court affirms the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. The responses to the question posed in the interlocutory appeal.