Acmet, Inc. v. the Wet Seal, Inc.
677 F. App'x 304
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Acmet, Inc. sued defendants for copyright infringement of a fabric/design registered as VA 1-862-161; defendants conceded Acmet’s ownership for the purposes of appeal.
- The district court denied Acmet’s motion for summary judgment and entered summary judgment sua sponte for defendants, ruling Acmet failed to prove copying.
- Acmet argued copying based on alleged substantial/striking similarity between its design and defendants’ designs: same number and arrangement of triangles, identical top border layout, and same size ratios; differences were mainly color, bottom border, and an extra line in some defendants’ designs.
- Defendants argued lack of proof of copying and contested similarity; there was no direct evidence of copying presented.
- Evidence supporting access: Tony Kim owned both the printer Acmet used (Design by Nature) and the seller (Fashion Life); Fashion Life ordered the accused designs from a Chinese vendor within three months of Acmet’s disclosure to Design by Nature.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of Acmet’s summary judgment de novo, affirmed denial, and reversed the district court’s sua sponte grant of summary judgment to defendants, remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Acmet proved copying of protectable elements | Designs are substantially/strikingly similar in arrangement and proportions | Differences in color and minor elements defeat copying proof | Genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether proof of access exists | Access inferred because same individual (Tony Kim) linked Acmet’s printer and defendant seller; orders placed soon after disclosure | No direct evidence of transmission from Acmet to seller | Jury could reasonably infer access; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether striking similarity can substitute for access | Striking similarity alleged between designs | Defendants deny similarity is striking or probative | Reasonable jurors could disagree; question for jury |
| Appropriateness of sua sponte summary judgment for defendants | N/A (plaintiff moved for summary judgment) | District court entered summary judgment for defendants | Reversed: district court erred to enter sua sponte summary judgment; case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (elements of copyright infringement: ownership and copying)
- Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) (proof of access and substantial similarity required absent direct evidence)
- L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) (substantial similarity analysis for fabric/design works)
- Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1987) (striking similarity can establish copying when access is lacking)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment and evaluating evidence inferences)
- Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm’t Inc., 581 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (access inference and summary judgment context)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of de novo review on summary judgment issues)
- Buckingham v. United States, 998 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1993) (procedural guidance on appellate review of summary judgment)