United States Court of Appeals
`For the Eighth Circuit
`___________________________
`
`No. 22-3355
`___________________________
`
`Ronald Ragan, Jr.
`
` Plaintiff - Appellant
`
`v.
`
`Berkshire Hathaway Automotive, Inc.
`
` Defendant - Appellee
`____________
`
`Appeal from United States District Court
`for the Western District of Missouri
`____________
`
`Submitted: December 13, 2023
`Filed: February 2, 2024
`____________
`
`
`Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
`____________
`
`
`GRASZ, Circuit Judge.
`
`Ronald Ragan claims Berkshire Hathaway Automotive Inc. (BHA) copied his
`
`single-page car dealership customer intake form (“Guest Sheet”) without his
`permission. Under federal copyright law, this case boils down to whether the Guest
`Sheet exhibits a sufficient degree of creativity. It does not, and for that reason, we
`affirm.
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. Background
`
`
`Ragan claims he created a document called the Guest Sheet that purportedly
`
`helps car dealerships sell cars. The Guest Sheet consists of questions, prompts,
`headings, fill-in-the-blank lines, and checkboxes. In 1999, the United States
`Copyright Office issued a certificate of registration to Ragan for the Guest Sheet.
`
`Around 2000, Ragan claims the Van Tuyl Group, Inc., a privately-owned auto
`
`dealership, copied and used the Guest Sheet. Ragan notified Van Tuyl of the
`supposed infringement. In return, Van Tuyl’s insurer, American International
`Group, Inc., sued Ragan, seeking a declaratory judgment that Van Tuyl was not
`infringing on Ragan’s copyright and the copyright was void and unenforceable. That
`lawsuit was later dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
`
`In 2015, BHA acquired Van Tuyl. Ragan claims that after acquiring Van
`
`Tuyl, BHA continued to use the Guest Sheet. After Ragan complained, BHA
`allegedly agreed to modify the form but continued using it. Ragan then commenced
`this lawsuit, claiming copyright infringement. BHA moved for judgment on the
`pleadings, asserting the Guest Sheet was not copyrightable. The district court1
`granted BHA’s motion and entered judgment against Ragan. This appeal followed.
`
`
`II. Analysis
`
`
`On appeal, Ragan argues the district court erred by finding the Guest Sheet
`
`uncopyrightable. We review a grant of judgment on the pleadings de novo, “viewing
`all facts pleaded by the nonmoving party as true and granting all reasonable
`inferences in favor of that party.” Henson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 3 F.4th 1075,
`1080 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir.
`
`
`1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the
`Western District of Missouri.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`2009)). Where no dispute about the facts exists, we will address copyrightability as
`a question of law. See Toro Co. v. R & R Prods. Co., 787 F.2d 1208, 1213 (8th Cir.
`1986).
`
`Ragan contends he owns the copyright to the Guest Sheet. The Copyright Act
`
`extends copyright protection only to “original works of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. §
`102(a). This originality requirement is imposed by the Constitution, as well as the
`text of the Copyright Act itself. See Feist Publ’ns., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499
`U.S. 340, 346 (1991) (“Originality is a constitutional requirement.”). To meet this
`requirement, a work must be “independently created by the author (as opposed to
`copied from other works), and . . . possess[] at least some minimal degree of
`creativity.” Id. at 345.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Although Ragan claims the Guest Sheet is an “elegant” form “distilled [from]
`
`years of . . . experience,” it noticeably lacks the requisite originality of a
`copyrightable work. It is a basic customer intake sheet containing fewer than 100
`words seeking basic information:
`
`
`Ragan claims the selection and arrangement of the words used as section
`
`headings and question prompts make the Guest Sheet sufficiently original. But the
`“mere selection” of words does not make a work copyrightable. Feist, 499 U.S. at
`362–63 (explaining the act of selecting which words to include in a utilitarian work
`is not enough to meet the originality requirement). The Guest Sheet still must exhibit
`some degree of creativity, which it fails to do, mainly because it does not convey
`information. See Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700, 708 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[A]
`form that conveys no information and serves only to provide blank space for
`recording information contains no expression or selection of information that could
`possibly warrant copyright protection.”). See also Utopia Provider Sys., Inc. v. Pro-
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Med Clinical Sys., L.L.C., 596 F.3d 1313, 1323–24 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding a form
`asking for basic information ranging from “name, date of birth, [and] sex” to “the
`history of the present illness” and “medical and social history” did not convey
`adequate information).
`
`The Guest Sheet does not tell a car salesperson how to do his or her job; it is
`
`merely a means of capturing and retaining information routinely considered when a
`car salesperson seeks to sell a car. See id. at 1324. As the district court explained,
`“the Guest Sheet in and of itself does nothing more than request basic information
`which, at most, may simply assist a salesperson [to] tailor his or her sales pitch.”
`Thus, we conclude the Guest Sheet is a form designed to record, not convey,
`information. See, e.g., Bibbero Sys., Inc. v. Colwell Sys., Inc., 893 F.2d 1104, 1108
`(9th Cir. 1990) (finding medical “superbills” uncopyrightable because superbills fail
`to convey information). For these reasons, the Guest Sheet is not entitled to
`copyright protection.
`
`Ragan also claims the district court ignored the statutory presumption of
`
`copyright validity granted to the Guest Sheet by the certificate of registration.
`Specifically, he argues judgment on the pleadings was improper because BHA put
`forth no affirmative evidence—beyond the registered work—to rebut the prima facie
`presumption of copyright validity. Ragan is correct that the Guest Sheet’s
`registration certificate creates a statutory presumption of copyrightability. See 17
`U.S.C. § 410(c) (“In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made
`before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima
`facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the
`certificate.”). But Section 401(c) does not impose any requirements on how a
`defendant must meet its burden. See id. (“The evidentiary weight to be accorded
`the certificate of a registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the
`court.”) (emphasis added). Thus, the copyrightability of the Guest Sheet can be
`determined by an examination of the Guest Sheet alone, as the district court
`recognized. See, e.g., Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 414
`(2d Cir. 1985) (“Once defendant’s response to plaintiff’s claim put in issue whether
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`. . . forms were copyrightable, [the district court] correctly reasoned that the ‘mute
`testimony’ of the forms put him in as good a position as the Copyright Office to
`decide the issue.”).
`
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`
`
`Because the Guest Sheet lacks the requisite originality for protection, we
`
`affirm.
`
`______________________________
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`