Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–915 
_________________ 

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

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[February 24, 2022]

  JUSTICE THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE ALITO  joins,  and 
with  whom  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  joins  as  to  all  but  Part  II, 
dissenting. 
  A  copyright  registration  is  invalid  if  the  registrant  in-
cluded materially inaccurate information in its application 
“with knowledge that [the information] was inaccurate.”  17 
U. S. C. §411(b)(1)(A).  In its petition for certiorari, Unicol-
ors  asked  us  to  decide  a  question  on  which  the  Courts  of 
Appeals were split: whether §411(b)(1)(A)’s “knowledge” el-
ement requires “indicia of fraud.”  Pet. for Cert. i.  Specifi-
cally, Unicolors argued that “knowledge” requires “inten[t] 
to defraud the Copyright Office.”  Id., at 7. 
  Yet  now,  after  having  “persuaded  us  to  grant certiorari 
on this issue,” Unicolors has “chosen to rely on a different 
argument in [its] merits briefing.”  Visa Inc. v. Osborn, 580 
U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (internal punctuation altered).  It no 
longer argues that §411(b)(1)(A) requires fraudulent intent 
and instead proposes a novel “actual knowledge” standard.  
Because I would not reward Unicolors for its legerdemain, 
and  because  no  other  court  had,  before  today,  ever  ad-
dressed whether §411(b)(1)(A) requires “actual knowledge,” 
I  would  dismiss  the  writ  of  certiorari  as  improvidently 
granted.