Figure Eight Holdings, LLC v. Dr. Jays Inc. et al
Filing
71
FINDINGS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Manuel L. Real. (pj)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FIGURE EIGHT HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
v.
DR. JAY’S, INC.; WICKED
FASHIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. CV 10-7828 R (AJWx)
The Honorable Manuel L. Real
FINDINGS OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Courtroom: 8
17
18
19
20
Based upon the arguments and admissible evidence presented by the parties
21
in connection with the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendants
22
DrJay’s.com, Inc., Fashion Studio LLC, and Wicked Fashions, Inc.
23
(“Defendants”), the Court makes the following findings of uncontroverted facts
24
and conclusions of law:
25
26
27
28
1
2
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
1.
In its Complaint, Plaintiff Figure Eight Holdings, LLC alleges that
3
Defendants infringed the copyright in a graphic work titled “Treacherous,” by
4
selling, advertising and distributing apparel bearing a design substantially similar
5
to “Treacherous.” Complaint ¶¶ 1, 5, 11-29.
6
2.
True and correct copies of “Treacherous” and photographs of the
7
apparel bearing the allegedly infringing design were appended to the Complaint as
8
Exhibits 1 and 2, and were reviewed by the Court.
9
10
11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
Pursuant to Rice Versus Fox Broadcasting Company, 330 F.3d 1170
12
(9th Cir. 2003), plaintiff must show two elements to prevail on a copyright
13
infringement claim: One: Ownership of a valid copyright; and Two: Copying of
14
constituent elements of the work that are original.
15
2.
Because the Court concludes that defendants have not copied original
16
constituent elements of plaintiff's work, it does not reach the issue of plaintiff's
17
ownership of the copyright.
18
3.
As stated in Rice Versus Fox Broadcasting Company, 330 F.3d 1170
19
(9th Cir. 2003), to determine whether two works are substantially similar for the
20
purposes of summary judgment, courts in the Ninth Circuit use “extrinsic tests,”
21
which measure the “articulable similarities between the plot, themes, dialogue,
22
mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events.”
23
4.
A party claiming infringement may place no reliance upon any
24
similarity in expression resulting from unprotectable elements. “Similarities
25
derived from the use of common ideas,” for example, cannot be protected.
26
5.
And relatedly, the doctrine of scenes a faire holds that “expressions
27
indispensable and naturally associated with the treatment of a given idea are
28
treated like ideas and are therefore not protected by copyright.”
1
1
6.
Here, all of the elements of plaintiff's design are not eligible for
2
protection individually because they naturally follow from facts and ideas only.
3
Plaintiff's use of 3D lettering, stars, circles, striped lettering, and multiple colors to
4
create a design for a brand naturally follow from ideas of and concerning words
5
and lettering, and as such these elements are not individually protectable.
6
7.
Further, plaintiff has not arranged these unprotected elements in such
7
a way that the combination constitutes an original work of authorship. Rather, the
8
unprotectable elements are arranged in conventional and predictable ways in
9
everyday creation of advertising media. There is no “spark of creativity”
10
warranting protection and plaintiff may place no reliance upon any similarity of
11
arrangement.
12
8.
13
14
Accordingly, applying the extrinsic test, there are no protectable
elements to plaintiff’s design or copying of an “original work of authorship.”
9.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.
15
16
Dated: Sept. 21, 2011.
17
18
19
Honorable Manuel L. Real
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4076537.1
2
]]>
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?
