## Facts

- Robert L. Bell, doing business as Crescendo Publishing Company, claimed ownership (by assignment) of the copyright in Max Ehrmann’s prose poem commonly known as *Desiderata*.
- Bell asserted a chain of title through (1) a 1927 registration obtained in the name “Indiana Publishing Company,” (2) alleged testamentary transfers following Ehrmann’s death, and (3) assignments culminating in Bell’s acquisition.
- Bell also claimed rights through a 1948 copyrighted collection of Ehrmann’s poems that included *Desiderata*, later assigned to Bell.
- Combined Registry Company published *Desiderata* in the August 1971 issue of *Success Unlimited Magazine*.
- Combined Registry denied infringement and challenged the existence and enforceability of any valid copyright, asserting (among other defenses) forfeiture and abandonment based on authorized dissemination without statutory copyright notice.
- Evidence showed Ehrmann had granted broad, informal permission for reproduction and distribution of the poem (including distribution to large numbers of servicemen) without discussion or insistence on copyright notice.
- The case was decided by the court on affidavits, depositions, exhibits, and memoranda, with the opinion serving as findings of fact and conclusions of law.

## Issues

1. Whether Ehrmann’s authorization of public dissemination of *Desiderata* without the statutory copyright notice resulted in forfeiture of copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909.
2. Whether Ehrmann’s conduct manifested an intent to abandon copyright, placing the work in the public domain.
3. Whether Bell had a valid and enforceable chain of title if the copyright had not been lost.
4. Whether, assuming a valid copyright existed, Combined Registry’s 1971 publication constituted infringement.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Combined Registry.
- The court found that Ehrmann both forfeited and abandoned the copyright in *Desiderata* before the defendant’s 1971 publication.
- Because the work was in the public domain, Bell had no enforceable copyright and could not maintain an infringement action.
- The judgment was affirmed on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Copyright Act of 1909, an owner who authorizes publication of a work to the public without proper copyright notice forfeits statutory copyright, and the work enters the public domain.
- Copyright abandonment may be shown by objective conduct evidencing intent to surrender exclusive rights; extensive, noncommercial, uncontrolled distribution and failure to insist on notice can support an inference of abandonment.
- A prior decision upholding a claimant’s rights against a different defendant does not bind a new defendant and does not control where the evidentiary record differs.
- Where the underlying copyright has been forfeited or abandoned, questions about later transfers and infringement become immaterial because there is no enforceable right to infringe.

## Conclusion

The court held that *Desiderata* was in the public domain because Ehrmann authorized broad dissemination without required notice and otherwise acted inconsistently with preserving exclusive rights; as a result, Bell lacked an enforceable copyright and Combined Registry was not liable for infringement.


Bell v. Combined Registry Co., 397 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ill. 1975)