Malibu Textiles, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
668 F. App'x 800
9th Cir.2016Background
- Malibu sued defendants for copyright infringement, alleging defendants’ fabric patterns copied Malibu’s floral pattern.
- The district court dismissed Malibu’s claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim and concluded amendment would be futile.
- Malibu’s complaint alleged similar layout and arrangement but lacked photos and detailed descriptions tying specific protectible elements to defendants’ patterns.
- The district court relied on Satava in finding Malibu failed to allege substantially similar protectible elements.
- The Ninth Circuit held the district court erred: Malibu had not sufficiently pleaded infringement but should have been allowed to amend because the defects could be cured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges copying of protectible elements | Malibu: alleged layout/arrangement were substantially similar or virtually identical | Defendants: complaint insufficiently described protectible elements or similarity | Court: Complaint insufficient but could be cured by amendment |
| Whether access was adequately pleaded | Malibu: implied access via dissemination/chain of events | Defendants: no facts showing access or widespread dissemination | Court: Access not adequately alleged; plaintiff could plead chain or sales/ distribution facts to show access |
| Whether stylized floral designs are protectible | Malibu: overall selection, coordination, arrangement of floral elements is protectible | Defendants: reliance on Satava to argue lack of protectible similarity | Court: L.A. Printex protects stylized floral designs and selection/arrangement of unprotectible elements is protectible; district court misapplied Satava |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate | Malibu: should be given chance to amend | Defendants: dismissal proper due to futility | Court: Dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion because amendments could cure defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate only if amendment could not cure complaint)
- Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must plead copying via striking similarity or substantial similarity plus access)
- L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) (stylized fabric designs entitled to broad copyright protection; selection/arrangement of unprotectible elements protectible)
- Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003) (court referenced but district court misapplied it in assessing protectible similarity)
REVERSED and REMANDED.