Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

UNICOLORS, INC. v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L. P. 

Opinion of the Court 

exclusively to certain customers).  959 F. 3d, at 1198–1200.  
But did Unicolors know about this inaccuracy?  In the Ninth 
Circuit’s  view,  it  did  not  matter whether  Unicolors did  or 
did not know that it had failed to satisfy the “single unit of 
publication” requirement.  Id., at 1200.  That was because, 
in the Ninth Circuit’s view, the statute excused only good-
faith  mistakes  of  fact,  not  law.    Ibid.    And  Unicolors  had 
known the relevant facts, namely, that some of the 31 de-
signs  had  initially  been  reserved  for  certain  customers.  
Ibid. 
  Unicolors sought certiorari, asking us to review the Ninth 
Circuit’s interpretation of §411(b)(1)(A).  We granted the pe-
tition. 

II 
  A brief analogy may help explain the issue we must de-
cide.  Suppose that John, seeing a flash of red in a tree, says, 
“There is a cardinal.”  But he is wrong.  The bird is not a 
cardinal; it is a scarlet tanager.  John’s statement is inac-
curate.  But what kind of mistake has John made? 
  John  may  have  failed  to  see  the  bird’s  black  wings.    In 
that case, he has made a mistake about the brute facts.  Or 
John may have seen the bird perfectly well, noting all of its 
relevant features, but, not being much of a birdwatcher, he 
may not have known that a tanager (unlike a cardinal) has 
black wings.  In that case, John has made a labeling mis-
take.  He saw the bird correctly, but does not know how to 
label what he saw.  Here, Unicolors’ mistake is a mistake of 
labeling.  But unlike John (who might consult an ornithol-
ogist  about  the  birds),  Unicolors  must  look  to  judges  and 
lawyers as experts regarding the proper scope of the label 
“single  unit of  publication.”   The labeling problem  here  is 
one of law.  Does that difference matter here?  Cf. United 
States v. Fifty-Three (53) Eclectus Parrots, 685 F. 2d 1131, 
1137 (CA9 1982).  We think it does not.