## Facts

- Roth Greeting Cards created “studio” greeting cards combining original illustrations with short, often common, phrases arranged in a unified layout.
- Roth developed cards through an integrated process: a writer proposed text, management approved and placed it into a rough card layout, and an artist produced comprehensive and final layouts.
- United Card Company produced competing cards; it had no staff writer during the relevant period and developed many cards through its president and vice-president.
- United’s vice-president testified that United’s “gag” sources were uncertain, that he visited card stores and trade shows to see market offerings, and that he may have seen Roth’s cards or had them in his office before creating United’s cards.
- Roth claimed seven United cards closely resembled seven Roth cards for which copyrights had been obtained, including cards pairing distinctive illustrations with short phrases such as “I wuv you” and “I miss you already … and you haven’t even left.”
- Roth sued for damages and injunctive relief for copyright infringement; an unfair competition claim was pleaded but not pursued.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory prerequisites to filing a copyright infringement action were satisfied, such that federal jurisdiction existed despite alleged defects or timing in registration steps.
2. Whether United infringed Roth’s copyrights when the cards used short, common phrases, but allegedly copied Roth’s protected expression in the cards’ combined text, characters, artwork, mood, and layout.
3. Whether substantial similarity may be found based on the works’ overall “total concept and feel,” even if no isolated element is independently protectable or identical.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment for United.
- The court held jurisdiction existed because Roth’s compliance with deposit and registration requirements was sufficient to permit suit.
- The court held United infringed Roth’s copyrighted cards.
- The court agreed the individual words or short phrases were too commonplace to be protected, but found actionable copying in the overall similarity of the cards as integrated works.
- Judge Kilkenny dissented, reasoning that if no individual component infringes, the whole should not be treated as infringing.

## Legal Principles

- Technical or administrative delays in completing registration-related steps do not necessarily bar a suit where statutory prerequisites have been sufficiently satisfied.
- Short, ordinary phrases are generally not copyrightable standing alone.
- Copyright protection may extend to the original selection, coordination, and arrangement of common elements into a unified work.
- Substantial similarity may be established by comparing the works’ overall “total concept and feel,” including characters, message, mood, artwork, and layout, rather than isolating each component.
- Evidence of access, together with strong overall similarity, supports an inference of copying of protected expression.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that although Roth’s individual phrases were not protectable, United infringed by producing greeting cards with substantially similar overall expression—measured by the cards’ combined “total concept and feel”—and that Roth’s registration-related compliance was sufficient to maintain the action.


Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970)