Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-23-02149/USCOURTS-ca3-23-02149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fanatics Inc
Appellee
William Grondin
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 23-2149

_______________

WILLIAM GRONDIN,

Appellant

v.

FANATICS, INC,

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-22-cv-01946)

District Judge: Honorable Gene E. K. Pratter

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a):

September 5, 2024

_______________

Before: JORDAN, HARDIMAN, and PORTER,

Circuit Judges.

(Filed: December 27, 2024)

______________

OPINION

______________

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 23-2149 Document: 35 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024
2

PORTER, Circuit Judge.

William Grondin sued Fanatics Inc. (“Fanatics”) for copyright infringement. The 

District Court dismissed the case because Grondin did not identify a copyrighted aspect 

of his work that Fanatics allegedly copied. We will affirm. 

I

In 1996, Grondin designed hockey memorabilia he calls “Slice of the Ice.” The 

original “Slice of the Ice” is a transparent sculpture with a hockey puckshaped cavity 

filled with melted rink ice from noteworthy hockey games. The sculpture is shaped like 

the Stanley Cup trophy, made of a hard plastic (Lucite), and features logos associated 

with the National Hockey League and its teams. Grondin later produced simplified 

versions of Slice of the Ice that are just the transparent hockey pucks filled with melted 

rink ice.1

In 1998, Grondin received copyright protection for Slice of the Ice, which he 

described as a “reproduction of the Stanley Cup in Lucite, with a puck-shape cavity 

containing melted ice.” JA 23–24. With licenses from the NHL, Grondin sold Slice of the 

Ice to NHL franchises who then sold it to fans.

Fanatics sells products like the simplified version of Slice of the Ice. Fanatics’s

product is also a transparent hockey puck filled with melted rink ice.

1 Grondin clarified that this action only alleges copyright infringement of the original

version of Slice of the Ice. Grondin v. Fanatics, Inc., 2023 WL 144284, at *1 n.1 (E.D. 

Pa. Jan. 10, 2023). 

Case: 23-2149 Document: 35 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2024
3

In May 2022, Grondin sued Fanatics for copyright infringement. Fanatics moved 

to dismiss the case because Grondin did not have a valid copyright and, even if he did, 

Fanatics did not copy Slice of the Ice. The District Court concluded that Grondin holds a 

valid copyright, but he failed to plead sufficient facts plausibly demonstrating that 

Fanatics’s product was similar and that Fanatics had access to Slice of the Ice. Grondin 

amended his complaint and Fanatics again moved to dismiss. This time, the District 

Court held that Grondin alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate access but not substantial 

similarity, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Grondin appealed.

II

The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1338(a) and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district 

court’s decision on a motion to dismiss de novo. McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 

526 (3d Cir. 2009). 

III

To state a claim for copyright infringement a plaintiff must allege that (1) he owns 

a valid copyright, and (2) the defendant copied the copyrighted work’s original and

protected aspects. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). 

The element of copying has two components: (a) actual copying and (b) material 

appropriation. Tanksley v. Daniels, 902 F.3d 165, 173 (3d Cir. 2018). 

Actual copying occurs when the defendant used the plaintiff’s work to create a 

plagiarized work. Id. Plaintiffs can prove actual copying either directly (e.g., with 

“smoking gun” evidence of the defendant cutting-and-pasting the copyrighted work) or 

Case: 23-2149 Document: 35 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/27/2024
4

indirectly (e.g., by demonstrating that the two works are similar enough such that actual 

copying can be inferred). Id. When courts ask whether actual copying can be inferred,

they look at both copyrighted and non-copyrighted aspects of the two works. Id. 

Material appropriation is a related, but different, concept. It asks whether the 

copyrighted aspects of the original work are sufficiently similar to the copyrighted 

aspects of the plagiarized work. Id. at 174. Two works are said to be “substantially 

similar” if “a ‘lay-observer’ would believe that the copying was of protectable aspects of 

the copyrighted work.” Id. (quoting Dam Things from Den. v. Russ Berrie & Co. Inc., 

290 F.3d 548, 562 (3d Cir. 2002)). When courts ask whether material appropriation 

occurred, they look only at copyrighted aspects of the original work and exclude noncopyrighted aspects. Id. at 173. The material appropriation inquiry is therefore a two-step 

process: first, courts distill the original work to only its copyrighted elements; second,

they compare the distilled copyrighted work to the alleged plagiarized work. Id. at 174. 

At issue on appeal is whether the District Court erroneously concluded that 

Grondin failed to allege sufficient facts plausibly demonstrating substantial similarity. 

Following the two-step material appropriation inquiry, we first ask whether the District 

Court properly identified the copyrighted aspects of Slice of the Ice. Only then can we 

ask whether the District Court erred in comparing the copyrighted aspects of Slice of the 

Ice and Fanatics’s product. 

A

Grondin points to several aspects of Slice of the Ice that, in his view, demonstrate 

substantial similarity: (1) the idea of hockey memorabilia being filled with melted rink 

Case: 23-2149 Document: 35 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/27/2024
5

ice, (2) the process of retrieving rink ice, (3) the idea of providing a certificate of 

authenticity, (4) the use of a puckshaped object, (5) the fact that the hockey puck is 

transparent, (6) the fact that the hockey puck is hollow, and (7) the amount of melted rink 

ice with which the hockey puck is filled. We consider each in turn. 

1

It is blackletter copyright law that no “idea, procedure, process, system, method of 

operation, concept, principle, or discovery” is protected by copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Particular expressions of an idea, however, are protected by copyright. See, e.g., Golan v. 

Holder, 565 U.S. 302, 328 (2012). Thus, neither the idea of filling hockey memorabilia 

with melted rink ice, nor the process of retrieving rink ice, nor the idea of providing 

certificates of authenticity is a copyrighted aspect of Slice of the Ice, as Grondin argues. 

Because none of these features are copyrighted, they cannot demonstrate substantial 

similarity. 

2

Grondin also posits that the use of a puckshaped object as an expression of his 

idea to fill hockey memorabilia with rink ice is a protected aspect of Slice of the Ice. We 

agree with the District Court that the use of a puckshaped object as an expression of an 

idea about hockey is unprotected under the scènes à faire doctrine.

Under that doctrine, “elements that flow predictably from a general idea” are not

protected. Tanksley, 902 F.3d at 175. “Scenes a faire are ‘incidents, characters or settings

which are as a practical matter indispensable . . . in the treatment of a given topic.’”

Whelan Assocs. Inc., v. Jaslow Dental Lab’y, Inc., 797 F.2d 1222, 1236 (3d Cir. 1986)

Case: 23-2149 Document: 35 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/27/2024
6

(quoting Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 616 (7th Cir.

1982)). We have explained that scènes à faire are not protected “because the subject

matter represented can be expressed in no other way than through the particular scene a

faire.” Id. If these elements were protected, “copyright would give the first author a

monopoly on the commonplace ideas behind the scenes a faire.” Id. (quoting Landsberg

v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc., 736 F.2d 485, 489 (9th Cir. 1984)) (internal

quotations omitted). Thus, “[i]n a film about a college fraternity, for example, ‘parties,

alcohol, co-eds, and wild behavior’ would all be considered scènes à faire.” Tanksley,

902 F.3d at 175 (quoting Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283, 296 (6th Cir.

2004)). Similarly, the use of a puckshaped object “flow[s] predictably” from, id., and is

an “incident[]” that is “as a practical matter indispensable” to ideas about hockey, Whelan

Assocs., 797 F.2d at 1236 (quoting Atari, 672 F.2d at 616). As a scène à faire, the hockey

puck shape is thus not a protected aspect of Slice of the Ice.

3

Next, Grondin points to the transparency, hollowness, and existence of an air 

bubble as protected aspects of Slice of the Ice. These aspects of Slice of the Ice, however, 

are likewise not protected because they are utilitarian. The definitional section of the 

Copyright Act excludes “mechanical or utilitarian” aspects of copyrighted “sculptural 

works” from protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. It defines “[p]ictorial graphic, and 

sculptural works” to “include works of artistic craftmanship insofar as their form but not 

their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned.” Id. An aspect of a work is 

“utilitarian” within the meaning of copyright law so long as it is “intrinsically useful” for 

Case: 23-2149 Document: 35 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/27/2024
7

the realization of an idea. Silvertop Assocs. Inc. v. Kangaroo Mfg. Inc., 931 F.3d 215, 221

(3d Cir. 2019).

For example, we concluded in Silvertop Associates v. Kangaroo Manufacturing

that the cutouts for a costume wearer’s limbs were utilitarian aspects of a costume. Id. at 

221. There, we noted that the “dimensions and locations” of the costume’s cutouts were 

“intrinsically useful (perhaps even necessary) to make the costume wearable . . . so they 

cannot be copyrighted.” Id. at 221 n.5.

We recognize that “[t]he line between art and industrial design [] is often difficult 

to draw.” Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405, 409 (2017). 

Nevertheless, we think the District Court got it right: the transparency, hollowness, and 

existence of an air bubble in Slice of the Ice are utilitarian, non-copyrighted aspects. Each 

of these features are “intrinsically useful” for displaying melted rink ice. That Slice of the 

Ice’s transparency and hollowness are useful for displaying melted rink ice is selfevident. The existence of an air bubble is less obvious, but no less useful. As the District 

Court noted, placing an air bubble inside the puckshaped object is useful because it 

shows that Slice of the Ice is filled with melted rink ice. Grondin v. Fanatics, Inc., 2023 

WL 2957474, at *2 (E.D. Pa. April 14, 2023). The fact that there might be alternative 

ways to demonstrate that an object is filled with water without an air bubble (e.g., by 

using material that more noticeably refracts light) or by changing the size of the air 

bubble does not change our analysis.

Grondin argues that the District Court erred because Slice of the Ice serves only 

aesthetic purposes. This argument conflates two issues: whether Slice of the Ice is itself a 

Case: 23-2149 Document: 35 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/27/2024
8

“useful article” and whether particular features of Slice of the Ice are not copyrighted 

because those features are useful. The former issue—whether Slice of the Ice is a 

copyrighted “useful article” that incorporates independently copyrighted “pictorial, 

graphic, or sculptural features” or a copyrighted “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural 

work”—does not resolve this dispute.

Instead, the issue on appeal is whether Fanatics’s product infringes on Grondin’s 

valid copyright. To answer that question, we must determine whether Slice of the Ice and 

Fanatics’s product are substantially similar such that “a ‘lay-observer’ would believe that 

the copying was of protectable aspects of the copyrighted work.” Tanksley, 902 F.3d at 

174 (quoting Dam Things from Den., 290 F.3d at 562). In so doing, we only consider 

elements of a copyrighted work that are protectable by copyright law. Id. at 173. And, for 

the reasons mentioned above, Slice of the Ice’s transparency, hollowness, and the 

existence of an air bubble are useful, therefore non-copyrighted, features of the work.

B

Having considered which aspects of Slice of the Ice are protected by copyright, the

next step is to determine whether Slice of the Ice (excluding all non-copyrighted features) 

is substantially similar to Fanatics’s product. Our task here is simplified by the fact that 

Grondin has not identified any copyrighted aspect of Slice of the Ice upon which

Fanatics’s product allegedly infringes. Without pointing to any copyrighted aspect of 

Slice of the Ice, Grondin cannot demonstrate that Slice of the Ice is substantially similar 

to Fanatics’s product and therefore cannot state a claim for copyright infringement 

against Fanatics. 

Case: 23-2149 Document: 35 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/27/2024
9

Grondin argues that our caselaw forecloses the District Court’s divide-andconquer approach under which it “inspect[ed] each feature individually” only to “find 

each one too unoriginal or too utilitarian in isolation” therefore “declin[ing] to protect the 

whole.” Kangaroo Mfg., 931 F.3d at 221. Indeed, we have often instructed courts to 

“train[] [their] focus on the combination of design elements in a work” when considering 

whether two works are substantially similar. Id; see also, Kay Berry, Inc. v. Taylor Gifts, 

Inc., 421 F.3d 199, 209 (3d Cir. 2005) (focusing on “the specific combination of elements 

[] employed to give [a work] its unique look”). That instruction reminds courts to not lose 

the forest for the trees by separately comparing each copyrighted aspect of a work and 

overlooking the focus of the inquiry—whether “a lay-observer would believe that the 

copying was of protectable aspects of the copyrighted work.” Tanksley, 902 F.3d at 174 

(quoting Dam Things from Den., 290 F.3d at 562) (internal quotations omitted). 

However, in situations where a plaintiff does not point to any aspect of his work that is 

protected by copyright law, there is simply nothing to compare. Because none of the 

aspects of Slice of the Ice that Grondin alleged Fanatics’s product copied were protected 

by his copyright, there is no basis for concluding that the two are substantially similar. 

* * *

For these reasons, we will affirm. 

Case: 23-2149 Document: 35 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/27/2024