956 F.3d 36
1st Cir.2020Background
- Cortés‑Ramos submitted a music video to Sony’s 2014 "SuperSong" contest; he became a top‑20 finalist. Martin (Ricky Martin) was involved with the contest and later released the song/video "Vida," allegedly "almost identical" to Cortés‑Ramos’s video.
- Cortés‑Ramos sued Martin alleging federal copyright infringement and several Puerto Rico state‑law claims.
- This is the fourth appearance in the courts: prior suits against Sony led to arbitration rulings; this action against Martin was previously reversed on arbitration/party‑status grounds and returned to district court.
- The district court dismissed the copyright claim with prejudice for failure to allege preregistration/registration under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) and for insufficient factual allegations of copying/similarity; state claims were dismissed without prejudice for conclusory pleading.
- The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the state‑law claims, held the complaint adequately alleged access and substantial similarity (so the copyright claim was plausible), but agreed the complaint lacked an allegation that the work was registered before suit and remanded to allow the district court to decide whether to permit supplementation under Rule 15(d) or dismiss without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of copyright pleading (access & similarity) | Cortés‑Ramos alleged contest submission gave Martin access and that Vida is "almost identical" | Martin argued complaint lacked factual allegations showing copying or substantial similarity | Allegations of contest access plus "almost identical" suffice at pleading stage to infer actual copying and substantial similarity; claim plausible |
| Registration prerequisite (17 U.S.C. § 411(a)) | Cortés‑Ramos urged the suit should proceed or be allowed to amend to allege later registration | Martin maintained suit required registration before institution and complaint conceded no pre‑suit registration | §411(a) requires registration issued by the Copyright Office before instituting suit; absence of pre‑suit registration made complaint deficient |
| Post‑filing registration / Rule 15(d) supplementation | Cortés‑Ramos sought leave to supplement to allege registration obtained after filing | Martin opposed proceeding without proper pre‑suit registration | Supplementation under Rule 15(d) is discretionary; §411(a) is a claim‑processing rule (not jurisdictional); remand for district court to decide whether to allow supplementation or require a new action |
| State‑law claims (PR trademark, Articles 1802/1803, §§1021/2992) | Alleged fraudulent inducement, trademark injury, and tortious interference theories | Martin argued the pleadings were conclusory and failed to allege required elements or facts | Dismissal of state claims affirmed: complaints were conclusory, lacked factual detail, and failed to plead essential elements; dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall‑Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019) (registration occurs only when Copyright Office registers claim by issuing certificate)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (notice‑pleading and plausibility framework)
- T‑Peg, Inc. v. Vt. Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2006) (actual copying requires access and probative similarity)
- Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2005) (substantial similarity and access framework)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010) (§411(a) is a claim‑processing rule, not jurisdictional)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) ("instituted" language requires exhaustion before suit)
- United States ex rel. Gadbois v. PharMerica Corp., 809 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) (Rule 15(d) supplementation is discretionary and favors efficiency when not prejudicial)