Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

could not sue for infringement) because it contained inaccu-
rate information.  Id., at 1197–1198; see also §411(a).  Spe-
cifically,  H&M  argued  that  Unicolors’  registration  certifi-
cate was inaccurate because Unicolors had improperly filed 
a  single  application  seeking  registration  for  31  separate 
works.  App. 91–92, 170–172.  H&M relied on a Copyright 
Office regulation, which provides that a single registration 
can cover multiple works only if those works were “included 
in  the  same  unit  of  publication.”    Id.,  at  170  (emphasis 
added); 37 CFR §202.3(b)(4) (2020).  H&M argued that the 
31  fabric  designs  covered  by  Unicolors’  single  application 
(and therefore single registration) had not been published 
as  a  single  unit  of  publication  because  Unicolors  had  ini-
tially  made  some  of  the  designs  available  for  sale  exclu-
sively to certain customers, while other designs were imme-
diately  available  to  the  general  public.    App. 170–171.  
Because  the  first  statutory  requirement  for  invalidating 
Unicolors’  registration  (a  knowing  inaccuracy)  was  satis-
fied,  H&M  argued,  the  District  Court  should  move  to  the 
second  requirement  and  ask  the  Register  of  Copyrights 
whether it would have refused to register Unicolors’ copy-
right  if  it  had  been  aware  of  the  inaccuracy.  Id.,  at  172–
173; see also §§411(b)(1)(B), (b)(2). 
  The  District  Court  denied  H&M’s  motion.    Id.,  at 202.  
Among other things, it noted that “a registration remains 
effective  despite  containing  inaccurate  information”  if  the 
registrant included the inaccurate information in the regis-
tration application without “knowledge that it was inaccu-
rate.”  Id., at 180–181 (internal quotation marks omitted).  
Because Unicolors did not know that it had failed to satisfy 
the “single unit of publication” requirement when it filed its 
application, the purported inaccuracy could not invalidate 
the registration.  Id., at 182. 
  The Ninth Circuit disagreed.  It agreed with H&M that 
Unicolors  had  failed  to  satisfy  the  “single  unit  of  publica-
tion” requirement (because it offered some of the 31 designs