Universal Dyeing & Printing, Inc. v. US Textile Printing, Inc. et al
Filing
179
ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 146 and GRANTING Defendants Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 153 . (jp)
<![CDATA[
1
2
O
3
4
NO JS-6
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
UNIVERSAL DYEING & PRINTING,
INC., a California
corporation ,
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
US TEXTILE PRINTING, INC.;
ROSS STORES, INC.; UNO
CLOTHING, INC.; CNC
CLOTHING/ dba: CANDY RAIN ,
17
18
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 09-09132 DDP (VBKx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
[Motions filed on August 26, 2011
and August 27, 2011]
19
20
Plaintiff Universal Dyeing & Printing, Inc. (“Universal”)
21
alleges that Defendants US Textile Printing, Inc. (“USTP”), Uno
22
Clothing, Inc. (“UNO”), and Ross Stores, Inc. (“ROSS”)
23
(collectively “Defendants”) infringed two textile designs, for
24
which they hold the copyright.
25
cross motions for summary judgment as to both designs.
26
reviewing the papers submitted by the parties, considering the
27
arguments therein, and hearing oral arguments, the court GRANTS
28
Defendants’ motion and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff and Defendants filed
After
1
I.
Legal Standard
2
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, the
3
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show
4
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
5
movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
6
P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 324
7
(1986).
8
non-moving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in
9
its favor.
Fed. R. Civ.
The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
10
A genuine issue exists if "the evidence is such that a
11
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,"
12
and material facts are those "that might affect the outcome of the
13
suit under the governing law."
14
fact exists "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a
15
rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party."
16
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574,
17
587 (1986).
18
Id. at 248.
No genuine issue of
It is not enough for a party opposing summary judgment to
19
"rest on mere allegations or denials of his pleadings."
20
477 U.S. at 259.
21
pleadings to designate specific facts showing that there is a
22
genuine issue for trial.
23
existence of a scintilla of evidence" in support of the nonmoving
24
party's claim is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
25
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
26
Anderson,
Instead, the non-moving party must go beyond the
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
The "mere
The Ninth Circuit has expressed disfavor for summary judgment
27
on questions of substantial similarity, but explained that “it is
28
nevertheless appropriate to grant summary judgment if, considering
2
1
the evidence and drawing all inferences from it in the light most
2
favorable to the nonmoving party, no reasonable jury could find
3
that the works are substantially similar in idea and expression.”
4
Pasillas v. McDonald’s Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 442 (9th Cir. 1991).
5
II.
Discussion
6
A.
7
Universal is a Los Angeles based printing mill that markets to
Background
8
the apparel industry textile designs for use on fabrics.
9
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 2.)
(First
Universal is the copyright
10
registrant of Copyright Certificate No. UA-12291.
11
alleges that Defendant “adopted, copied, reproduced, manufactured,
12
distributed and/or sold” textiles, i.e. clothes, with Universal’s
13
copyrighted design.
14
infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501. (Id. ¶¶ 28-34.)
15
(Id.) Universal
Universal seeks relief for copyright
Defendants move for summary adjudication of Universal’s claim
16
that Defendants have infringed Design UA-12291 and Design UA-13022.
17
Defendants contend that there is no substantial similarity between
18
the designs and garments at issue, that their designs were
19
independently created and copyrighted, and that they are entitled
20
to summary adjudication as to the Design UA-12291 and the Design
21
UA-13022 in their favor.
22
Plaintiff also moves for summary adjudication of its claims.
23
Plaintiff maintains that Defendants have admitted to copying
24
Plaintiff’s designs and that, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to
25
summary judgment in its favor.
26
8:11-20.)
27
B.
(Pl.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Copyright infringement
28
3
1
To prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate
2
(1) ownership of the allegedly infringed work and (2) copying of
3
the protected elements of the work by the defendant. Narell v.
4
Freeman, 872 F.2d 907, 910 (9th Cir. 1989).
5
is difficult to prove, a plaintiff can satisfy the second element
6
by demonstrating that (a) the defendant had access to the allegedly
7
infringed work and (b) the two works are substantially similar in
8
both idea and expression of that idea.
9
Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 442 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
i.
Because direct copying
Pasillas v. McDonald's
Access
“Proof of access requires an opportunity to view or to copy
12
plaintiff's work.”
13
482 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted).
14
has been defined as a “reasonable” possibility that Defendants
15
viewed Plaintiff's Design.
16
776-77 (C.D. Cal. 1981). “[A] bare possibility is insufficient to
17
create a genuine issue of whether” Defendants copied Universal’s
18
design.
19
Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477,
“Opportunity”
Jason v. Fonda, 526 F. Supp. 774,
Id. at 777.
Universal argues as a preliminary matter that it need not
20
prove access because Defendants have admitted to copying
21
Universal’s designs.
22
evidence to support this allegation.
23
asserts, with no further detail or support, that “Defendant []
24
admitted to the copying.”
25
9:19.)
26
record in its eleven-page motion for summary judgment in its favor.
27
Defendant, on the other hand, denies any allegation that Defendant
28
admitted to copying Plaintiff’s designs.
Universal, however, cites absolutely no
Rather, Universal baldly
(Pl.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Indeed, Universal does not make a single citation to the
4
(See Decl. Woo ¶ 3.)
1
Because Universal has not produced any direct evidence that
2
Defendants had access to Design UA-12291 or Design UA-13022 when
3
they created the allegedly infringing garments, the court proceeds
4
to consider whether circumstantial evidence supports a finding that
5
Defendants had access to the designs.
6
reasonable access is proven in one of two ways: (1) a particular
7
chain of events is established between the plaintiff's work and the
8
defendant's access to that work . . . or (2) the plaintiff's work
9
has been widely disseminated.”
10
“Circumstantial evidence of
Three Boys Music, 212 F.3d at 482.
Universal does not present any evidence that Defendants had
11
access to Design UA-12291 or Design UA-13022 through any particular
12
chain of events.
13
generously, perhaps argue that Design UA-12291 and UA-13022 have
14
been in wide enough dissemination that access can be inferred.
15
Universal does, construing its motion quite
In Three Boys, the Ninth Circuit found that substantial
16
evidence supported a jury's finding of access where the copyrighted
17
song enjoyed significant radio airplay over 20 years.
18
212 F.3d at 483-85.
19
Entertainment, Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth
20
Circuit found that no widespread dissemination existed, despite the
21
fact that the tee-shirt design at issue in that case was available
22
at a display booth, on individuals wearing the tee-shirt, and via
23
the internet.
24
1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit found there was no
25
evidence of widespread dissemination of a video even though 19,000
26
copies were sold over a 13-year period.
27
that Universal has failed to raise any genuine issue of material
Three Boys,
However, in Art Attack Ink, LLC v. MGA
Similarly, in Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d
28
5
Here, the court concludes
1
fact with respect to whether Defendants had access to Design UA-
2
12291 or UA-13022 through wide dissemination.
3
The court proceeds to consider whether the two works are
4
substantially similar in both idea and expression of that idea.
5
The court notes that even if Plaintiff had offered admissible
6
evidence in support of its allegations of direct copying and
7
access, the court must still proceed to consider substantial
8
similarity.
9
1175-78 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (proceeding to consider “substantial
See Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129,
10
similarity” in a copyright action where defendants did not refute
11
allegations of direct access and copying).
12
similarity, there can be no infringement.
13
Corp., 66 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1140-41 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (explaining
14
that even if the plaintiff in that case “did have evidence of
15
direct copying . . . he still remains unexcused from demonstrating
16
the requisite similarity”).
17
18
ii.
Without substantial
See Berkla v. Corel
Substantial similarity
To determine whether two works are substantially similar, the
19
Ninth Circuit employs a two-part analysis — an extrinsic and an
20
intrinsic test.
21
specific expressive elements.
22
F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002).
23
subjective comparison that focuses on “whether the ordinary,
24
reasonable audience” would find the works substantially similar in
25
the “total concept and feel of the works.”
26
Pictures & Televison, 16 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 1994).
27
applying the two-part test, this court “inquire[s] only whether
28
‘the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially
The “extrinsic test” is an objective comparison of
Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297
The “intrinsic test” is a
6
Kouf v. Walt Disney
In
1
similar’ and “filter[s] out and disregard[s] the non-protectable
2
elements.”
Cavalier, 297 F.3d at 822.
3
The court turns, therefore, to consider first whether Design
4
UA-12291 is substantially similar to Ross Product SKU 7879, which
5
contains Defendants’ design W-20039.
6
that no reasonable jurist could find substantial similarity between
7
the two textile patterns, Defendants are entitled to summary
8
judgment in their favor as to Design UA-12291.
9
Because the court concludes
The garment and Plaintiff’s Design UA-12291 are indeed
10
similar; however, the two are not substantially similar.
11
observable elements of Universal’s design are: incomplete circle
12
motifs; circle motifs that interlock and overlap each other,
13
generally with a small circle and larger circle; brush stroke
14
effect background, which is not consistent in color and width;
15
areas of white background with no brush stroke effect; and
16
overlapping circles that are split roughly in half by distinct
17
coloration.
18
Defendant’s garment are: circle motifs; circle motifs that
19
interlock and overlap; enclosed diamond motifs; interlocking
20
diamond motifs; concentric diamond motifs; brush stroke effect
21
background, which is consistently vertical but varies in width; and
22
a range of colors that includes dark greens, olive, and blues.
23
(Id., Ex. D.)
24
(See Keller Decl., Ex. B.)
The
The observable elements of
The two patterns do share some common elements – in
25
particular, they share a brush stroke background – however, they
26
are readily identifiable as distinct in their particulars.
27
Defendants’ design does not contain incomplete circle motifs.
28
Universal’s circles are colored in such a way as to split the color
7
1
within the circles.
Defendants’ design has no such variation in
2
coloration within its circles.
3
none of Defendants’ circles or diamonds appear “filled in.”
4
Defendants’ design has diamond shapes and Universal’s does not.
5
The background brush strokes, while similar in technique, are not
6
themselves similar.
7
down the pattern within a particular stroke; Defendants’ individual
8
strokes are significantly more uniform on the vertical axis.
That is, unlike Universal’s design,
Universal’s strokes vary in width as one moves
9
The court proceeds to consider whether Design UA-13022 is
10
substantially similar to Ross Products SKU 8548 and SKU 3903, which
11
contains Defendants’ design W-20057 (i.e. the “water color
12
design”).
13
could find substantial similarity between the two textile patterns,
14
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor as to
15
Design UA-13022.
16
Because the court concludes that no reasonable jurist
Plaintiff’s Design UA-13022 and Defendants’ garment SKU 8548
17
do share an initial appearance of similarity.
18
involve swaths of color or brush strokes.
19
Summary Judgment, Ex. 5.)
20
strokes that end in a blunt flat top.
21
in contrast, end in jagged ends.
22
two-toned.
23
strokes are also patchy and thin in places, causing the background
24
color to come through the brush stroke in places.
25
brush strokes are more solid and contain fewer places of perceived
26
transparency.
27
similar.
(See Defs.’ Motion for
Plaintiff’s design, however, has brush
Defendants’ brush strokes,
Defendants’ brush strokes are
Plaintiffs are monotone.
(Id.)
Both patterns
(Id.)
Plaintiff’s brush
Defendants’
The two patterns are not substantially
28
8
1
In sum, because no reasonable person could find that the two
2
designs share substantial similarities with the garments at issue
3
and because there is no evidence of Defendants’ access to
4
Universal’s Design UA-12291 or UA-13022, Defendants are entitled to
5
summary judgment as to Universal’s claims related to infringement
6
of Design UA-12291's and UA-13022's copyright.
7
III.
Conclusion
8
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Defendants’
9
Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issues and DENIES Plaintiff’s
10
Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Claims.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16
Dated: September 13, 2011
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
