Enchant Christmas Light Maze v. Glowco LLC
958 F.3d 532
6th Cir.2020Background
- Enchant produces a touring holiday light show with large three‑dimensional light sculptures and holds copyright registrations for several sculptures.
- Patrick Wallain (Exhibau) worked with Enchant in 2016–2017 and retained access to Enchant’s shared design folder after that relationship ended.
- Wallain and Chris Stacey (Glowco) planned an independent Nashville show after failing to reach an agreement with Enchant; Wallain (or his firm) sent two‑dimensional images from Enchant’s folder to Chinese manufacturers soliciting bids.
- Enchant sued Glowco for copyright infringement (plus trade‑secret and computer‑crime claims) and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; a TRO was briefly entered then lifted.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding any copyright protection in Enchant’s sculptures was at best "thin" and that Glowco’s works were not substantially similar to Enchant’s protected expression.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding Enchant failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or imminent irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on copyright‑infringement (copying/protected elements) | Enchant: sculptures contain original expressive choices (poses, proportions, approachable demeanor, crystal arrangements) and Glowco copied those elements. | Glowco: many asserted similarities are inherent to animals/crystals; Wallain testified different designs were used; lacks direct evidence of copying. | Court: Protectible expression was at best "thin"; similarities largely inherent to subject matter; no substantial similarity shown. |
| Direct vs. indirect evidence of copying | Enchant: access + similarities support inference of copying. | Glowco: Wallain admitted sending images for bids but denied those images were used; credible testimony undermines direct copying claim. | Court: No direct evidence; Wallain’s testimony found credible; Enchant must rely on indirect proof but fails on similarity. |
| Applicability of inverse‑ratio rule (high access lowers similarity burden) | Enchant: high access warrants applying a lower similarity standard (inverse‑ratio). | Glowco: rule not meaningfully developed or properly invoked; circuit law questionable. | Court: Enchant forfeited the argument and did not develop it; court did not apply the rule and declined to resolve its viability. |
| Irreparable harm / preliminary injunction necessity | Enchant: imminent injury from Glowco’s scheduled show justified emergency relief and (under circuit precedents) a presumption of irreparable harm. | Glowco: the immediate show ended; future harm speculative; presumption not decisive. | Court: Because Enchant failed to show likelihood of success, it is not entitled to the presumption; prospective harm was speculative (the challenged show was over), so injunction unwarranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for granting preliminary injunction)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright protects original expression, not facts or ideas)
- Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 2003) (two‑step test: identify protectible elements, then assess substantial similarity)
- Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003) (natural forms/ideas not protectible; realistic representations may receive thin protection)
- Folkens v. Wyland Worldwide, LLC, 882 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2018) (thin protection for realistic animal sculptures; protect original expressive choices)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction requires a clear showing)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (discusses rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm in copyright cases)
- Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for denial of preliminary injunction)