## Facts

- Masquerade Novelty, Inc. held assigned copyrights in small novelty masks shaped as animal noses (pig, elephant, parrot) worn over the user’s nose with elastic.
- Unique Industries, Inc. began selling similar animal nose masks, which Masquerade alleged were substantially similar to its copyrighted works.
- Unique contended the masks were uncopyrightable “useful articles” because their sculptural features were inseparable from their asserted function of enabling masquerade and humor.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Unique, concluding the masks were useful articles whose artistic features were not separable from their utilitarian function.
- Masquerade appealed; the notice of appeal named Masquerade’s attorney as the appellant, though both sides proceeded as if Masquerade was the appealing party.

## Issues

1. Whether appellate jurisdiction existed where the notice of appeal mistakenly identified counsel rather than the client as the party taking the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c).
2. Whether animal nose masks are uncopyrightable “useful articles” under 17 U.S.C. § 101 or copyrightable “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5).

## Decision

- The court held it had jurisdiction because the notice of appeal, read in context, clearly indicated an appeal taken on behalf of Masquerade and satisfied Rule 3(c).
- The court reversed summary judgment, holding the nose masks were copyrightable and not “useful articles” under § 101.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on infringement.

## Legal Principles

- A “useful article” under 17 U.S.C. § 101 requires an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray appearance or convey information.
- When an item’s only function is to portray appearance, it does not qualify as a “useful article” and may be protected as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work under § 102(a)(5).
- Emotional or psychological effects (such as creating humor) do not constitute the type of intrinsic utilitarian function that makes an item a “useful article.”
- Separability analysis under § 101 is required only when an article has utilitarian aspects apart from depiction; if there is no qualifying utilitarian function, there is nothing to separate from the artistic features.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit treated novelty animal nose masks as copyrightable sculptural works because their sole function was depiction, rejected humor as a qualifying utilitarian function under § 101, and sent the case back for adjudication of infringement.


Masquerade Novelty, Inc. v. Unique Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 663 (3d Cir. 1990)