L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc.
676 F.3d 841
9th Cir.2012Background
- L.A. Printex designed C30020, a floral textile pattern registered within Small Flower Group A (unpublished collection) in 2002.
- L.A. Printex sold over 50,000 yards of fabric bearing C30020 to fabric converters from 2002–2006.
- Aeropostale ordered shirts from Ms. Bubbles in 2006 and sold shirts resembling C30020 in late 2006.
- L.A. Printex sued for copyright infringement on April 8, 2009, after discovering registration errors in Small Flower Group A.
- The registration initially included two designs published before 2002; L.A. Printex sought supplementary registration to correct the date and publication status.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on access and substantial similarity, and awarded attorneys’ fees; L.A. Printex appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine dispute on access. | Dissemination of C30020 created reasonable opportunity to view. | Dissemination too limited/bare possibility to show access. | Yes; triable issue on access exists. |
| Whether there is a genuine dispute on substantial similarity. | Defendants copied protectible elements of C30020 (selection/coherence/arrangement). | Designs are surface-level similar and non-protectible aspects predominate. | Yes; triable issue on substantial similarity. |
| Whether L.A. Printex's copyright registration is invalid due to prior publication within Small Flower Group A. | Errors in registration do not invalidate registration; supplementary registration corrected the record. | Inclusion of published designs renders registration invalid. | Registration not invalid; summary judgment on this alternative ground denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) (access may be shown by circumstantial 'chain of events' or widespread dissemination)
- Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003) (dissemination must be more than a bare possibility)
- Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 581 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (dissemination in fair booths/kiosks/internet not always sufficient)
- Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995) (protectible expression in selection/arrangement may exist)
- Hamil America, Inc. v. GFI, 193 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1999) (shows substantial similarity in floral patterns based on selection/arrangement)
- Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm't, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010) (broad protection for stylized fabric designs; substantial similarity can support infringement)
- Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (extrinsic/intrinsic tests for substantial similarity; objective similarities matter)
- Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright protects original selection/arrangement of non-protectible elements)
- Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003) (ideas from nature not protected; originality in expression matters)
- Peel & Co. v. Rug Mkt., 238 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2001) (copying can be inferred from differences explained by manufacturing shortcuts)
- Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting Fixture Co., 345 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2003) (supplementary registration conclusions when correcting errors)