Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L. P., 595 U.S. 178

Background

Unicolors owned copyrights in fabric designs and filed an infringement suit against H&M after a jury verdict in its favor.
Unicolors submitted a single Copyright Office application seeking registration for 31 designs; a regulation allows multi-work registration only if works are in the same “unit of publication.”
H&M argued the registration was inaccurate because some designs were initially sold exclusively (not part of a single unit of publication) and sought judgment that the registration was invalid.
The District Court denied H&M’s motion, applying §411(b)(1)(A)’s safe harbor because Unicolors lacked knowledge that its application was legally inaccurate when filed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding the safe harbor excuses only mistakes of fact, not mistakes of law, and that Unicolors knew the factual circumstances rendering the application inaccurate.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held §411(b) does not distinguish mistakes of law from mistakes of fact: lack of knowledge of either can preserve a registration under §411(b)(1)(A); the Ninth Circuit judgment was vacated and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §411(b)(1)(A)’s phrase “with knowledge that it was inaccurate” distinguish mistakes of law from mistakes of fact?	"Knowledge" requires actual awareness; lack of awareness of law or fact excuses inaccuracy.	Safe harbor covers only factual mistakes; knowledge of facts suffices to defeat safe harbor even if registrant was unaware of legal rule.	The statute does not distinguish law vs fact; subjective lack of knowledge of either can satisfy §411(b)(1)(A).
Can an applicant’s awareness of underlying facts alone establish “knowledge” of an inaccurate legal representation?	No — if applicant lacked awareness of applicable legal rule, it did not “know” the information was inaccurate.	Yes — awareness of the facts that produced the inaccuracy is enough to show knowledge.	Awareness of facts does not automatically equal knowledge of legal inaccuracy; courts may consider legal awareness separately.
May courts find actual knowledge from circumstantial evidence or willful blindness?	Courts can infer knowledge from circumstances; willful blindness and other evidence may show actual knowledge.	H&M warned against excusing errors too readily.	Yes; courts may reject a registrant’s claim of ignorance based on willful blindness or circumstantial evidence.
Does the "ignorance of law is no excuse" maxim bar treating legal mistakes as excused under §411(b)?	The maxim is inapplicable; §411(b) is a statutory safe harbor tied to subjective knowledge.	The maxim should prevent registrants from escaping consequences by claiming ignorance of law.	The maxim does not control here; §411(b)’s scope is a civil statutory question about subjective awareness.

Key Cases Cited

Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U.S. _ (2020) (defining "knowledge" as subjective awareness)
Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997) (pre-§411(b) precedent that inadvertent registration mistakes do not invalidate copyright)
Billy-Bob Teeth, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 329 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2003) (tolerating inadvertent registration errors)
Advisers, Inc. v. Wiesen-Hart, Inc., 238 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1956) (same)
Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989) (presumption that Congress adopts judicially defined concepts when codifying)
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013) (statutory interpretation principles regarding codified judicial concepts)
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. _ (2019) (discussing application of ignorance-of-law in criminal statutes)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (requiring actual knowledge of law in certain criminal contexts)
City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600 (2015) (discussing dismissing certiorari when question presented shifts)
Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (declining to decide a novel issue not addressed by other courts)