CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
By Nissy-KITAQ - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30069867

Copyright Formalities Important in Infringement Cases

Improper filing
Causes court to toss verdict
In copyright case

The Ninth Circuit threw out a judgment of almost $800,000 in a copyright infringement case because of how the plaintiff filled out the copyright registration paperwork – and because the district court didn’t seek guidance about it from the Copyright Office.

Unicolors v. H&M involved a copyright dispute between Unicolors, a company that creates designs for use on textiles and garments, and H&M, which sells clothing.

Unicolors claimed that a design printed on H&M garments in 2015 infringed the copyright for a Unicolors design from 2011.

The jury found that the two designs were too similar, and Unicolors was awarded $266,209, plus $514,565.47 in attorney’s fees and costs.

On appeal, H&M argued that Unicolors’ copyright registration was invalid in that it didn’t comply with the “unit of publication” rule.

As the US Copyright Office website states,

H&M had introduced testimony at trial that the thirty-one works included in Unicolors’ copyright registration weren’t all published at the same time. However, the district court didn’t find the registration invalid.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found another problem.

Section 411(b) of the Copyright Act provides that a registration certificate that contains inaccurate information or errors can still be the basis for a lawsuit unless: “the inaccurate information was included on the application for copyright registration with the knowledge that it was inaccurate” and “the inaccuracy of the information if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration.”

The statute includes a mechanism by which a court can seek advice from the Register of Copyrights about whether the inaccuracy would have caused the registration to be refused.

Thus, the court remanded the case in order for the district court to complete this requirement before deciding whether the registration was valid.


Just like the haiku above, we like to keep our posts short and sweet. Hopefully, you found this bite-sized information helpful. If you would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact us here.

Related Articles

Buying Rival’s Trademark as Keyword Search Doesn’t Violate Lanham Act

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a case in which the plaintiff law firm claimed ...
Read More

What does copyright law have to do with McDonalds ice cream machines?

The US Copyright Office has granted a copyright exemption giving restaurants the right to repair broken equipment by bypassing locks intended to prevent anyone other ...
Read More

What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law

Not surprisingly, a lot is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law. Here’s a roundup of some recent developments ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854