Antsy Labs, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto
1:22-cv-01801
N.D. Ill.Dec 5, 2022Background
- Antsy Labs created the Fidget Cube via Kickstarter in 2016; it licensed Zuru in early 2017.
- Antsy Labs obtained a copyright registration for the Fidget Cube with an effective date of June 30, 2017, and deposited a specimen; a trademark for "Fidget Cube by Antsy Labs" was registered in 2018 (first use 2016).
- Since April 2017 Plaintiffs have been the official U.S. source for genuine Fidget Cube products and allege marketplace recognition of the mark.
- The Moving Defendants (e.g., Kakaixi, Dragonflydreams, Fidget Dice) sell fidget toys on Amazon that Plaintiffs allege are substantially similar/counterfeit.
- Plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 106), false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), and violation of the IUDTPA; some Schedule A defendants settled or defaulted, but the Moving Defendants appeared and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court allowed the copyright claim to proceed but dismissed the false designation and IUDTPA claims without prejudice for failure to plead a protectable mark.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identification/notice of the copyrighted work | Provided copyright registration, photos, and product description (six sides with distinct fidget features) | Complaint lacks sufficient particularity to put defendants on notice | Court: Complaint gives fair notice; identification sufficient to survive 12(b)(6) |
| Validity of copyright (industrial/functional design) | Registration creates prima facie validity; minimal originality presumed at pleading stage | Fidget Cube is an industrial/functional design and uncopyrightable | Court: Accepts registration as prima facie evidence; validity left for later stages |
| Copying / substantial similarity | Products share unique features and access exists; differences are superficial | Differences in shape, features (e.g., joystick), colors negate substantial similarity | Court: Plaintiff plausibly alleged substantial similarity; claim may proceed to fact discovery |
| Protectability of the mark for Lanham Act and IUDTPA | Plaintiffs allege marketplace recognition and source association; mark has acquired secondary meaning | "Fidget cube" is generic or merely descriptive without secondary meaning | Court: Plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing a protectable mark; false designation and IUDTPA claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright requires originality and protectable constituent elements)
- Am. Dental Ass’n v. Delta Dental Plans Ass’n, 126 F.3d 977 (7th Cir.) (copyright does not extend to purely functional industrial designs)
- Wildlife Express Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc., 18 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.) (copyright registration is prima facie evidence of validity)
- Mid Am. Title Co. v. Kirk, 991 F.2d 417 (7th Cir.) (challenge to copyright validity often inappropriate at pleading stage)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must plead facts raising right to relief above speculative level)
- Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir.) (copying inferred from access plus substantial similarity)
- Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir.) (minor differences do not preclude infringement if overall similarity exists)
- Hobbs v. John, 722 F.3d 1089 (7th Cir.) (district courts may resolve substantial similarity at motion to dismiss in appropriate cases)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (trade dress distinctiveness and protection)
- Platinum Home Mortg. Corp. v. Platinum Fin. Grp., Inc., 149 F.3d 722 (7th Cir.) (marks categorized by distinctiveness)
- Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (unregistered marks may be protected under § 43(a) of Lanham Act)
- Uncommon, LLC v. Spigen, Inc., 926 F.3d 409 (7th Cir.) (distinctiveness ordinarily a factual question)