Opinion ID: 6342258
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Copyright-Trademark Distinction

Text: At the outset, Boyd Street concedes that AK Futures has shown a likelihood of success on its copyright infringement claim with regard to its one registered copyright. But Boyd 10 AK FUTURES V. BOYD STREET DISTRO Street argues the District Court erroneously extended copyright protection to AK Futures’ six unregistered trademarks. Indeed, the District Court’s statement in its copyright discussion that AK Futures “owns six [m]arks for its Cake product, all of which are registered,” was incorrect. AK Futures owns just one registered copyright, which covers a single version of the Cake logo design. It has applied for trademark registration for six marks, but these applications remain pending. Copyright and trademark registration are not interchangeable. The two involve different government offices. Compare 17 U.S.C. § 701(a) (U.S. Copyright Office), with 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(1) (Patent and Trademark Office). They grant different protections and rights. Compare 17 U.S.C. § 106 (copyright), with 15 U.S.C. §§ 1057(b), 1115 (trademark). And, most pertinently here, registration is a vital “prerequisite” for a copyright infringement action, Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L. P., 142 S. Ct. 941, 944 (2022), but a party with only unregistered marks may still bring a trademark infringement action under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1752 (2017). Thus, conflating AK Futures’ registration of one valid copyright with its mere application to register six trademarks would ordinarily be error. However, the District Court’s order entering the injunction properly distinguished between trademark and copyright protection. Contrary to Boyd Street’s claim that the District Court granted copyright protection to AK Futures’ unregistered marks, the order limited the scope of copyright protection to the one registered copyright. The order instead granted trademark protection to the unregistered marks, which followed from the District AK FUTURES V. BOYD STREET DISTRO 11 Court’s separate discussion of AK Futures’ likelihood of success on its trademark claim. We therefore must evaluate whether the District Court properly issued a preliminary injunction protecting AK Futures’ trademarks.