## Facts

- Hulbert T. E. Beardsley (and his company) developed a method for replacing lost, stolen, or destroyed securities using a blanket bond intended to cover future losses.
- In 1939, Beardsley published a six-page pamphlet explaining the method and including three pages of functional insurance/legal forms (e.g., a proposed blanket bond and related documents), all bearing a copyright notice.
- Continental Casualty Company used its own insurance forms and practices in the same general field.
- Continental sued for declaratory relief that Beardsley had no valid, enforceable copyright covering the forms and that Continental did not infringe; it also asserted unfair-competition and antitrust theories based on Beardsley’s enforcement efforts.
- Beardsley counterclaimed for copyright infringement and related unfair-competition theories, including misuse of confidential disclosures and inducement of breaches of implied contracts.
- After a bench trial, the district court granted Continental declaratory relief (and an injunction) and rejected both sides’ ancillary claims; both parties appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether insurance forms and legal instruments are categorically ineligible for copyright protection.
2. Whether Beardsley had an enforceable copyright in the forms accompanying his pamphlet, given their functional character and his dissemination and exploitation of them.
3. Whether Continental’s forms were substantially similar to any protectable expression in Beardsley’s forms so as to constitute infringement.
4. Whether either party proved unfair competition, misuse of confidential information, inducement of contractual breaches, or antitrust violations.
5. Whether the injunction entered for Continental was overly broad.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit rejected a per se rule against copyrighting forms, holding there is no legal bar to copyrighting forms and insurance instruments.
- The court nonetheless concluded Beardsley could not enforce the asserted copyright to control the underlying method or to claim broad exclusivity over the functional instruments at issue.
- The court agreed that Continental did not infringe because similarities, to the extent any existed, were attributable to functional requirements and standard legal drafting rather than copying of protectable expression.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Beardsley’s unfair-competition and confidentiality-based claims and affirmed dismissal of Continental’s unfair-competition and antitrust claims, along with denial of an accounting and attorney’s fees.
- The court reviewed the injunction to ensure it did not restrain lawful activity beyond protecting Continental from infringement claims tied to the specific disputed materials.

## Legal Principles

- Forms and insurance instruments are not categorically excluded from copyright protection; they may qualify as copyrightable “writings” if they contain original expression.
- Copyright protects expression, not ideas, systems, or methods of operation; a business or insurance “plan” is not protected as such.
- Functional, standard, or legally necessary language in instruments receives at most thin protection, limiting the scope of any enforceable right.
- Infringement requires substantial similarity in protectable expression; similarities driven by function, industry practice, or boilerplate do not establish infringement.
- Assertion of copyright claims, without proof of additional exclusionary conduct and anticompetitive effect, does not by itself establish antitrust or unfair-competition liability.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that while legal and insurance forms may be copyrightable in principle, Beardsley could not use copyright to monopolize a functional securities-replacement method or standard instrument language; Continental’s materials were not infringing, and neither side proved the asserted unfair-competition or antitrust theories, though injunctive relief was confined to preventing improper infringement claims.


Continental Cas. Co. v. Beardsley, 253 F.2d 702 (2d Cir. 1958)