N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AM U SEM ENT AR T, LLC ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. LIFE IS B EAUTIFUL, LLC ; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-55045 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-08290-DDP-JPR M EM O R ANDUM *

AM U SEM ENT AR T, LLC ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. LIFE IS B EAUTIFUL, LLC ; DOW NTOW N LAS VEGAS M ANAGEM ENT, LLC ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts, and DOES, 1 through 10, inc l usive ,

De fe nda n t. No. 17-55884 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-08290-DDP-JPR 

# FIL ED APR 23 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.AM U SEM ENT AR T, LLC , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. LIFE IS B EAUTIFUL, LLC ; DOW NTOW N LAS VEGAS M ANAGEM ENT, LLC ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, and DOES, 1 through 10, inc l usive ,

De fe nda n t. No. 17-55888 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-08290-DDP-JPR

Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

25, 2019 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R U FE, * * Distric t Judge . Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Am use m e nt Art, LLC (“ AA” ) a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum

m ary judgm e nt to De fe n d ant-Appe lle e s Life is B e a utiful, LLC

* * The Honora

ble C ynthia

M . R ufe , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva n ia , sitting by

de signa tion. 2and Downtown La s Ve ga s M a n a ge m e nt, LLC (c olle c t ive ly “ L IB ” ) on AA’ s tra de m a rk and c o p yright infringe m e nt c la im s. In a d dition, both AA a nd LIB a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s award of attorne y ’ s fe e s to LIB . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm the orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt, and a ffirm

in pa rt a nd va c a te , in pa

rt, the fe e award. AA is the inte lle c tua l prope rty arm of artist Thie rry

Gue tta , a lso known a s

“ M r. B ra inwa sh.” For se ve ra l y e ars, Gue tta inc orporate d the phra se “ life is be a utiful” into som e of his a

rtwork a nd a rt shows, a

nd se pa ra t e ly c re at e d a rtwork involving a

spla s he d-pa int he art. AA re giste re d a se rie s of tra de m arks for both

“ life is be a

utiful” and the spla she d-pa i nt he art, a nd a l so re giste re d a

c opy right for the s pla she d-pa int he a

rt. Afte r LIB be ga

n hosting a

“ L ife is B e a

utiful” m usic and art fe stiva l in La s Ve ga s with a pa inte d-he a

rt logo (a nd following brie f, fa ile d ne gotia tions be twe e n the pa

rtie s), AA brought suit a

lle ging tha

t LIB ha d im prope rly a ppropria te d a nd infringe d upon AA’ s “ life is be a utiful” tra de m arks a s we ll a s the tra de m ark a

nd c opy right a ssoc i a te d with thespla she d-pa i nt he art. 1 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d AA’ s a lle gations tha t LIB infringe d AA’ s “ life is be a

utiful” tra de m ark.

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c t s of this c a se , we provide only this brie f sy

nopsis. 3As to the Se c tion 32(1) c la im s for re giste re d “ life is be a utiful” m a

rks, the distric t c o urt dism isse d those c la im s be c a u se AA de fraude d the U.S. Pa te n t a nd Tra de m ark Offic e (PTO) by subm itting fa lse a ffida

vits a nd photogra

phs purporting to show tha

t AA ha d use d the m ark “ life is be a utiful” on a

va rie ty of c om m e rc ia l produc ts. AA ha d pre v iously withdra wn those re gistra

tions, a nd doe s not a

p pe a l the d ism issa l of those c la im s. W e the re fore ne e d not a ddre ss the proprie ty of the distric t c o urt’ s orde r on tha t issue . Howe ve r, we va c a te the distric t c o urt’ s c anc e lla tion of those

re gistra t ions be c a use LIB ’ s c a

nc e lla tion c ounte rc la im s we re m oot following AA’ s volunta ry surre n de r of the re gistra

tions. As to the Se c tion 43 c la i m s for unre giste re d m arks, a nd the re late d c om

m on la w a nd sta te la w c la im s, the distric t c ourt rule d tha t LIB wa s e ntitle d to sum m ary judgm e nt be c a

u s e of its fra

u d on the PTO. The distric t c ourt’ s orde r c an be a ffirm e d for two a lte rna t ive re a sons: (a ) The e vide nc e of AA’ s fra ud on the PTO justifie s sum m ary judgm e nt for LIB . Although AA provide d de c la ra tions from the individua ls who subm itte d the fa lse a ffida

vits sugge s ting those

individua ls la c ke d the re quire d inte nt to de c e ive the PTO, those de c la

rations a re ske le ta l a

nd c o nc lusory , a

nd so the y

do not c re a te ge nuine i ssue s of m ate ria l fa c t in light of the c le ar e vide n c e that AA sought to m isle a d the PTO. Se e F.T.C . v . Publ’g C

le aring House

, Inc ., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 4(9th C ir. 1997), a s ame nde d (Apr. 11, 1997) (“ A c onc lusory , se lf-se rving a ffidavit, la c king de ta ile d fa c ts a

nd a ny supporting e vide nc e , is insuffic ie nt to c re at e a ge nuine i ssue of m a te ria l fa c t.” ). M ore ove r, AA forfe i te d a ny argum e nt tha

t its fraud on the PTO is unre late d to its unre giste re d c la im s a n d its sta te and c om

m on la w c la im s, a

nd AA the re fore c annot re ly on tha t a rgum e nt he re . Se e

, e . g., Yamada v . N obe l Bioc areHolding AG , 825 F.3d 536, 543 (9th C ir. 2016). (b) AA’ s unre giste re d

c la im s fa il on them e rits. Theonly argum e nt tha

t AA ra ise d in the distric t c ourt to show it posse sse d a prote c ta ble , sourc e -ide ntify ing m ark wa s the pre sum

ption of va lidity that ste m s from AA’ s “ life is be a utiful” c la ss 41 tra de m ark re g i stration (c ove ring m usic fe stiva ls). B ut the pre sum ption of va lidity is re b utta ble , a n d it only arise s a s of the re gistra

tion’ s Se pte m

be r 2014 filing da te , se e Se ngok

u W ork s Ltd. v . RMC

Int’l, Ltd ., 96 F.3d 1217, 1219-20 (9th C ir.1996), whic h wa s two y e ars afte r LIB ’ s first doc um e nte d use in 2012. Tha t argum e nt the re fore fa ils, a nd AA ha s wa i ve d a

ny a l te rna t ive argum e nts by re ly ing sole ly on its 2014 re gistra

tion. Se e , e .g., Abogados v . AT& T, Inc ., 223 F.3d 932, 937 (9th C i r. 2000)
. M ore ove r, e ve n be y ond AA’ s wa ive r and the 2014 re gistra tion, there c o rd shows tha t AA did not use

“ life is be a

utiful” a s a

sourc e ide n tify ing m ark. Inde e d, the ubiquitous phra se “ life is be a utiful” is a

we ll-use d trope tha t a ppe ars in a

va rie ty of diffe re nt m e dia , inc luding books a nd m ovie s, a

nd 5the re c ord doe s not show tha t the phra se de note s Gue tta ’ s work, e ve n in the c onte xt of pop a rt. At be st, “ life is be a

u tiful” wa s a

n e le m e n t of Gue tta ’ s a

rt, not a bran ding stra

t e gy or a de signa tion of origin, a

nd so wa s not e ntitle d to tra de m ark prote c tion. AA a

nd Gue tta a lso ha

ve no va lid sta

te la w c la im s for unfa ir c om pe tition without a

prote c t a ble , sourc e -ide ntify ing m a rk. As suc h, the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t to LIB . 2. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the c o py right a nd tra de m ark c la im s a ssoc iate d with AA’ s spla she d-pa int he a rt. AA ha d

no va lid tra de m a

rk be c a use the re c ord doe s not show tha t AA or Gue tta

use d the he art a s a

sourc e ide n tifie r; in fa c t, AA’ s c orporate de signe e te stifie d tha t the spla she d-pa int he art wa s a c opy righte d im a ge , not a

tra de m ark. And AA wa ive d the spla s he d-pa int he art c opy

right c la im

by fa iling to a de quate ly

a ddre ss it in its ope

ning brie f. W

. Radio Se rv

s. C o. v . Qw e s t C orp ., 678 F.3d 970, 979 (9th C i r. 2012) (“ [This c ourt] will not do a

n a ppe lla nt’ s work for it, e ithe r by

m anufa c turing its le ga l a rgum e nts, or by c om bing the re c ord on its be ha lf for fa c t ua l support.” ); Unite d State s v . Graf , 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ Argum e nts m a de in pa ssing a nd not supporte d by c ita

tions to the

re c ord or to c a se a

uthority are ge ne ra lly

de e m e d wa ive d.” ).

63. LIB is e ntitle d to fe e s on the La nha m Ac t c la i m s a

rising from both the

“ life is be a

utiful” m arks a

nd the spla s he d-pa int he a rt be c a use the distric t c ourt prope rly found thosec la i m s we re “ e xc e ptiona l” pursua nt to 15 U.S.C . § 1117(a ). The c la im s for re giste re d m arks we re “ e xc e ptiona l ” be c a use the re gistra

tions we re proc ure d fra

udule ntly , whic h AA a c knowle dge s is a ba s is for § 1117(a) fe e award. M ore o ve r, AA’ s fra

ud pe rm e a te d the unre giste re d c la im s be c a u se the re wa s signific ant ove rla

p be twe e n the re giste re d a n d unre g iste re d c la i m s, at le a s t in te rm s of litiga ting LIB ’ s de fe nsive c a se . And e ve n if AA’ s fra

u d is not re late d to the fe e s inc urre d on the unre giste re d tra de m ark a lle gations, those c la im s a re still

“ e x c e ptiona l” be c a

use the y are e xtra ordina

rily we a k

— the only argum e nt AA m a de wa s ba se d

on a pre sum ption of va l idity

tha t wa s two y e ars too la

te and ha d no c ha nc e of suc c e e ding. Sim ila rly , AA’ s spla she d-pa i nt he art tra de m ark c la im s we re e xtre m e ly we a k, a nd we re e ffe c tive ly

re fute d by

AA’ s own c orporate de signe e . Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding the Lanha m Ac t c la im s e xc e ptiona l a

nd a warding fe e s to LIB . 4. LIB is not e ntitle d to fe e s on the spla she d-pa i nt he art c opy right c la im . Although AA ultim

a te ly lost, thec la im

wa s ne ithe r frivolous nor obje c tive l y unre a s ona

ble . Inde e d, AA he ld a

va lid, re giste re d c opy

right of its he art im a ge and the re we re a num

be r of striking sim

ila ritie s be twe e n the two spla she d-he art im a ge s. 7M ore o ve r, LIB ’ s founde r pulle d se v e ra l im a ge s of Gue tta ’ s art off the inte rne t a nd re lie d on thoseim a g e s to pitc h the fe stiva l a nd ge t funding. Although the c la im ultim a te ly fa ile d, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t a fe e award wa s not justifie d. 5. Fina lly , a fte r c onc luding tha t LIB is e ntitle d to fe e s on the La nha m Ac t c la im s, but not the

c opy right c la im s, we othe rwise va c a t e the distric t c ourt’ s fe e award. B e c a

use we c onc l ude tha

t AA’ s volunta

ry surre n de r of the tra de m ark re gistra tions m o ote d

LIB ’ s c anc e lla

tion c ounte rc la im s (an d, for a ll pra c tic a l purpose s , re solve d AA’ s Se c tion 32 c la im s ba s e d on the unde rly ing m arks), the fe e award e nc om

pa sse s work tha

t wa s unne c e ssa

ry an d pote ntia lly

e xc e ssive . W e the re fore re m and to the distric t c ourt to re c onside r the e x te nt to whic h LIB ’ s fe e award should bea djuste d to e xc lude fe e s tha t we re inc urre d unne c e ssa rily following AA’ s surre nde r of the e ight re gistra t ions a t issue . The distric t c ourt’ s orde r on sum m ary judgm e nt is AFFIRM E D . The distric t c o urt’ s fe e award is AFFIRM E D IN PART and V ACAT E D IN PART , and the c a se is re m ande d to the distric t c ourt with instruc tions to e v a luate the im pa c t of AA’ s volunta

ry surre nde r on LIB ’ s La

nha m Ac t fe e aw a

rd. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts for this a p pe a l.

8