Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 20–915.  Argued November 8, 2021—Decided February 24, 2022 

A valid copyright registration provides a copyright holder with important 
legal  advantages,  including  the  right  to  bring  a  “civil  action  for  in-
fringement” of the copyrighted work.  17 U. S. C. §411(a).  Petitioner 
Unicolors, the owner of copyrights in various fabric designs, filed a copy- 
right infringement action against H&M Hennes & Mauritz (H&M).  A 
jury found in favor of Unicolors.  H&M sought judgment as a matter of 
law, arguing that Unicolors could not maintain an infringement suit 
because  Unicolors  knowingly  included  inaccurate  information  on  its 
registration  application,  rendering  its  copyright  registration  invalid.  
The alleged inaccuracy stemmed from Unicolors having filed a single 
application seeking registration for 31 separate works despite a Copy-
right  Office  regulation  that  provides  that  a  single  application  may 
cover multiple works only if they were “included in the same unit of 
publication.”  H&M argued that Unicolors did not meet this require-
ment  because  Unicolors  had  initially  made  some  of  the  31  designs 
available for sale exclusively to certain customers, while offering the 
rest to the general public.  The District Court determined that because 
Unicolors did not know when it filed its application that it had failed 
to satisfy the “single unit of publication” requirement, Unicolors’ copy-
right registration remained valid by operation of the safe harbor pro-
vision provided under §411(b)(1)(A).  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit de-
termined that it did not matter whether Unicolors was aware that it 
had failed to satisfy the single unit of publication requirement, because 
the safe harbor excuses only good-faith mistakes of fact, not law.  Uni-
colors  had  known  the  relevant  facts,  so  its  knowledge  of  the  law  (or 
lack thereof ) was irrelevant. 

Held: Section 411(b) does not distinguish between a mistake of law and 
a mistake of fact; lack of either factual or legal knowledge can excuse