## Facts

- Frank Morrissey developed a sweepstakes-style promotional contest and drafted written contest-entry rules involving use of contestants’ Social Security numbers.
- Morrissey obtained a copyright registration covering the text of his contest rules.
- Morrissey mailed his rules and related promotional suggestions to Procter & Gamble at its principal office, offering the concept for possible use.
- Years later, Procter & Gamble ran a sweepstakes promotion with an entry rule (“Rule 1”) that Morrissey alleged closely tracked, and in part nearly replicated, his own Rule 1.
- Morrissey sued Procter & Gamble in federal court for copyright infringement, alleging unlawful copying of Rule 1.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on the ground that Procter & Gamble lacked access to Morrissey’s rules, and thus copying could not be inferred.
2. Whether a straightforward, utilitarian contest-entry rule is copyrightable when there are only limited ways to express the necessary instructions without effectively granting exclusive control over the contest idea.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed judgment for Procter & Gamble, but not on the district court’s access and originality rationales.
- The court held that the contested rule was not copyrightable because its subject matter was so simple that protecting Morrissey’s wording would effectively bar others from using the underlying idea due to the scarcity of alternative expressions.
- On access, the court criticized the district court’s summary-judgment analysis: evidence that Morrissey mailed the rules to Procter & Gamble’s principal office supported an inference of receipt that was not conclusively eliminated by defense affidavits.
- Because the rule was uncopyrightable, any disputes about access or copying did not affect the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright does not protect ideas, systems, or methods of operation; protection for expression cannot be used to obtain exclusive rights over an uncopyrightable scheme.
- When an idea or functional instruction can be expressed in only a limited number of practical forms, the idea and expression effectively merge, and copyright protection is denied to avoid granting a monopoly over the idea.
- In evaluating summary judgment on access, evidence of mailing to a corporate defendant’s principal office can support an inference of receipt; affidavits denying knowledge do not necessarily resolve access as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for Procter & Gamble because the alleged infringing contest-entry rule was an uncopyrightable expression of a simple, functional instruction with too few alternative forms; extending protection would have effectively granted exclusive control over the contest idea itself.


Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967)