1

 When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, a district court

judge is required to “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s [recommendation]

that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02371-CMA-CBS

K-BEECH, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

ORDER AFFIRMING FEBRUARY 9, 2012

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on United State Magistrate Judge Michael J.

Watanabe’s February 9, 2012 Recommendation (Doc. # 32), in which he recommended

that Defendant John Doe’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 16) be denied. Also on February

9, 2012, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed timely objections to the Recommendation.1

(Doc. # 34.) After conducting the required de novo review, the Court affirms the

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this copyright infringement action on September 8, 2011, alleging

that Defendant unlawfully copied Plaintiff’s copyrighted video entitled “Virgins 4" (“the

Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 02/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
2

 Preregistration is not applicable here as it applies only to certain commercial works within

categories that have a history of infringement prior to commercial release. See 17 U.S.C.

§ 408(f).

2

Work”), using BitTorrent technology, in violation of the United States Copyright Act of

1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332. (Doc. # 1.) In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it

submitted an application to register the Work with the Copyright Office on April 22,

2011. (Id., ¶ 10.) Defendant’s alleged infringing activity occurred the next day on April

23, 2011. (Id., ¶ 37.) Therefore, at the time this action was brought, Plaintiff had

applied for, but had not received, a certificate of registration for the Work. Defendant

filed a motion to dismiss on January 11, 2012, arguing that the case should be

dismissed because Plaintiff did not possess actual registration of the Work at the time

the lawsuit was filed. (Doc. # 16.) Plaintiff responded on January 27, 2012 (Doc. # 25),

and Defendant did not reply.

II. ANALYSIS

Under the Copyright Act, the owner of a valid copyright “is entitled, subject to the

requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular

right committed while he or she is the owner of it.” 17 U.S.C. § 501(b). Section 411

states, in relevant part, that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any

United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright

claim has been made in accordance with this title.”2

 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). Although the

Supreme Court recently held that failing to register a work does not deprive a court of

subject-matter jurisdiction over a copyright infringement action, the Court also found that

Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 02/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
3

 The circuit courts are split on what it means to “register” a copyright work. See Cosmetic

Idea, Inc., 606 F.3d at 615 (collecting cases). The other approach, adopted by the Fifth,

Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, is the “application approach,” which holds that a copyright is

registered at the time the copyright holder’s application is received by the Copyright Office. 

See Cosmetic Ideas, 606 F.3d at 621; Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386-87

(5th Cir. 1984); Chicago Bd. of Educ. v. Substance, Inc., 354 F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir. 2003). 

Although this Court finds the policy reasons behind the application approach to be compelling,

see Cosmetic Ideas, 606 F.3d at 619-621, the Court is nevertheless bound to follow

La Resolana’s registration approach. 

3

§ 411(a) “establishes a condition–copyright registration–that plaintiffs ordinarily must

satisfy before filing an infringement claim.” Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, --- U.S. ---,

130 S.Ct. 1237, 1241 (2010); see also Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/InteractiveCorp, 606

F.3d 612, 615 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[P]ost-Reed Elsevier, registration is an element of an

infringement claim, rather than a jurisdictional bar.”). 

Although the Copyright Act does not define what it means to “register” a

copyrighted work, the Tenth Circuit has adopted the “registration approach,” which

holds that a copyright is registered at the time that the Copyright Office acts on an

application for registration.3

 La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire,

416 F.3d 1195, 1202-04 (10th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Reed Elsevier,

130 S.Ct. at 1247. In La Resolana, the Tenth Circuit rejected the proposition that a

work is registered within the meaning of § 411(a) upon submission of a copyright

application to the Copyright Office; rather, “the statute requires more: actual registration

by the Register of Copyrights.” Id. at 1205. 

As noted, when Plaintiff filed its complaint, its application with the Copyright

Office was still pending. Thus, under La Resolana, Plaintiff’s allegation that it had

Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 02/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
4

submitted an application for copyright registration is insufficient to support a copyright

infringement claim. See id. at 416 (“Every remedy outlined in Title 17, including

injunctions, is conditioned upon a copyright owner having registered the copyright.”). 

Although actual registration is a necessary element of a copyright infringement

claim in this Circuit, the Court nevertheless agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

dismissal of this action is unwarranted. This is because the Copyright Office has

now acted on Plaintiff’s application and issued a certificate of registration in the Work. 

(See Doc. # 25-2.) Once a certificate of registration has been issued, “the registration

dates back to the date of application.” Cosmetic Ideas, 606 F.3d at 616 (citing 17

U.S.C. § 410(d)). Thus, the Work is considered to have been registered on April 22,

2011, the date that Plaintiff submitted its application to the Copyright Office, and one

day before Defendant’s allegedly infringing activity occurred. Plaintiff, therefore, can

now satisfy the registration requirement to bring its infringement claim, despite the

application of the Tenth Circuit’s registration approach. See id. (finding that the plaintiff

could satisfy the registration element of an infringement claim, “irrespective of whether

registration accrues at application or issuance,” when the Copyright Office approved the

plaintiff’s application during the pendency of the case); see also La Resolana, 416 F.3d

at 1208 n.14 (citing cases standing for proposition that plaintiffs can cure defective

complaints after receiving a certificate of registration); KEMA, Inc. v. Koperwhats, 658 F.

Supp. 2d 1022, 1030 (finding that where plaintiff does not register copyright prior to

filing complaint, the defect can be cured if plaintiff subsequently registers the copyright

Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 02/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
4

 The Court has considered whether to require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to

include the allegation that the copyright is registered. However, doing so would exalt

form over substance and would be counter to the parties’ interest in efficient and speedy

justice. 

5

and files an amended complaint that includes the allegation that the complaint is

registered). Taking judicial notice of the certificate of registration, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has satisfied § 411(a)’s requirement that the Work be registered and, therefore,

the Court will not dismiss the case.4 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation (Doc. # 32) and OVERRULES Defendant’s Objections. (Doc. # 34.) 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 16)

is DENIED.

DATED: February 23 , 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02371-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 02/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5