Court Resolves Dispute Between the University of Vermont and Former Employee Over Cat Logo
After more than a year of litigation, the dispute between Sophia Boyages (“Plaintiff” or “Boyages”) and the University of Vermont and State Agricultural College (“Defendant” or the “University”) has come to an end. On November 4, Judge Session entered an Opinion in favor of the University, granting its Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Boyages’ motion.
The Court began by noting that the terms and conditions signed by Plaintiff at the time of her hiring required employees to “comply with University policies” (3). Those policies included the University’s Intellectual Property Policy. During her deposition, Plaintiff acknowledged receiving a link to the University’s policies at the time of hiring but admitted that she did not review all of them and therefore was unaware of the IP Policy. According to the Policy, employee-created works that involve “significant financial support," such as use of the University’s facilities, resources, and time, are “considered University-owned” (4). The Court also observed that the IP Policy gives ownership to the University when the copyrighted work is “developed as part of a University project... [or] developed within the scope of employment by non-faculty University employees,” (4). Despite discussing the IP policy, the court did not rest its ultimate decision upon the policy, devoting most of its analysis to the question of whether Boyages’ work could be considered a work for hire.
To determine this, the Court examined three main elements: whether the work performed was the kind of work the plaintiff was employed to do; whether the work occurred within the authorized time and space limits of the job; and whether the work was executed at least in part to serve the employer.
For the first element, the Court found that the logo created by Boyages fell within the scope of her work. Although it was not explicitly stated in her job description that creating logos was part of her duties, her role did include “supporting other senior department administrators and department-wide meetings,” and the Court pointed out that her placement on the athletic committee to provide such support reasonably involved creating a logo in that context (20). The second element also favored the Defendants because it was factual that at least some of the work was done during her working hours—a fact that neither party disputed. Finally, regarding whether the work was done to serve the employer, the Court found that it was. It even referenced Plaintiff’s own deposition, where Boyages acknowledged that she intended her work to be used as the new catamount logo. Had the plaintiff not been involved in the meeting where the logo was discussed, she likely would not have had the knowledge or motivation to design it. Because of these findings, the Court found compelling facts that supported the Defendants’ claim of work for hire, granting them summary judgment on that issue.
Concerning the question of who holds the copyright in the logo, the Court also found that the University is the rightful owner. The Court concluded that the logo was a work made for hire and that, in any case, Boyages’ version was a derivative work that remained substantially similar to the University’s original design, aside from minor differences.
Thus, the case was officially closed on November 04, 2025.