Opinion ID: 147867
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unauthorized Copying

Text: A plaintiff establishes unauthorized copying by showing that the defendant “had access to a copyrighted work” and “that there are substantial similarities between the two works.” Dam Things from Denmark v. Russ Berrie & Co., 290 F.3d 548, 561 (3d Cir. 2002). There is ample evidence to establish both access to the copyrighted work and substantial similarity between Mon Cheri’s copyrighted work and the embroidery patterns and dress styles of the Mirage dresses. The Wu defendants had access to the copyrighted material—the embroidery patterns applied to various Montage dresses—through many public sources, such as Mon Cheri’s website, Mon Cheri’s catalogues, wedding magazines, national advertisements, trade shows, and dresses on display at national award ceremonies. (See Pl. Supp. App’x. Ex. O at 35-36; Ex. R at 18; Ex. S at 181-82.) In fact, Wu admitted that if he wanted to copy the dresses of other manufacturers he could, although he disclaimed doing so. (See Pl. Supp. App’x. Ex. P at 43-44.) Moreover, there is evidence that Wu obtained Montage catalogues and used them for this particular purpose. (See Pl. Supp. App’x. Ex. Q at 43-44.) With respect to similarities between the dresses and the applied embroidery patterns, several witnesses testified that the Montage 12 and Mirage dresses were “exactly” alike or the same (see Pl. Supp. App’x. Ex. A; Ex. D at 44-45) and witnesses for the Wu defendants, including Wu himself, testified that they were “a lot alike” or substantially similar (see Pl. Supp. App’x. Ex. C; Ex. F).