Opinion ID: 147867
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Copyright Validity

Text: The introduction of a certificate of registration from the Copyright Office is prima facie evidence of validity. See 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (“In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration . . . shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright . . . .”); accord Williams Elecs., Inc. v. Arctic Int’l, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 873 (3d Cir. 1982). Moreover, “[p]ossession of a registration certificate creates a rebuttable presumption that the work in question is copyrightable.” Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie’s Costume Co., 891 F.2d 452, 455 (2d Cir. 1989). The parties do not dispute that Mon Cheri introduced twenty-nine certificates of registration into evidence, thereby establishing prima facie validity with respect to those copyrights. The burden shifted to the Wu defendants to show why the copyright claims were invalid. The Wu defendants contend that the copyrights are invalid because Mon Cheri committed fraud on the Copyright Office and because the copyrighted material lacks originality.
Fraud on the Copyright Office is an affirmative defense to claims of copyright infringement. To establish this defense, a defendant must show that in applying for the copyright at issue the applicant knowingly or intentionally failed to disclose a material fact. See Fonar Corp. v. Domenick, 105 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir. 1997) (explaining that with respect to the affirmative defense of fraud upon the Copyright Office, “the presumption [of validity] may be overcome only by ‘proof of deliberate misrepresentation’”) (quoting 5 Whimsicality, Inc., 891 F.2d at 455); accord Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai-America, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 125, 142-43 (D.N.J. 1982). The omission must be intentional. See Whimsicality, 891 F.2d at 456 (“It is the law of this Circuit that the knowing failure to advise the Copyright Office of facts which might have occasioned a rejection of the application constitutes reason for holding the registration invalid . . . .”) (internal quotation marks omitted). An applicant’s “mere inadvertence” is insufficient to establish this defense. Id. at 455 (explaining that the presumption of validity “generally is not overcome by an ‘innocent misstatement’”); accord Raquel v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp., 196 F.3d 171, 177 (3d Cir. 1999) (“[A]n inadvertent and immaterial misstatement will not invalidate a copyright registration, a proposition on which there is broad consensus in the federal courts.” (citations omitted)); Imperial Laces Inc. v. Westchester Lace Inc., 95CV-5353 (BSJ), 1998 WL 830630,  n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1998) (rejecting fraud on the Copyright Office because the omission “appears to have been the result of mere inadvertence rather than fraud”). At trial, the Wu defendants asserted this defense, contending that Mon Cheri failed to disclose that its works were derivative rather than original, as required in the application, and that this omission constituted fraud on the Copyright Office. In particular, they pointed to testimony from Mon Cheri’s designer, Ivonne Dome, that one of the flower and vine motifs incorporated into the embroidery and bead work for dress 6 number 21917 was not her original work.1 The Wu defendants contend that Mon Cheri’s failure to disclose this information constituted fraud. There is no evidence that Mon Cheri knowingly or intentionally omitted this information. Yolanda Carita, Mon Cheri’s Director of International Sales, assisted Mon Cheri’s attorneys with preparation of copyright applications and signed those applications as Mon Cheri’s agent. Carita testified about the standard processes in place for the creation of new Mon Cheri dress designs. Dome created embroidery or bead patterns and dress styles and then presented them to Carita, Mon Cheri’s owner Steven Lang, and others, who then together collaborated on the final design. Dome created numerous original designs and worked on her initial designs independently, sometimes sketching until three or four in the morning. No one directly supervised Dome when she sketched. Thus, no one observed Dome incorporating public elements into her designs and Dome never indicated that she had. Dome’s final work product (the embroidery or bead patterns plus style of dress) always had a distinct look such that it could be distinguished from dresses from other designers. Carita relied on this process for her basis for attesting to the originality of Dome’s work. (Mar. 25, 2008 Tr. at 112, 122-23, 126.) Lang, the founder and owner of Mon Cheri, also signed the copyright applications. He testified that the Montage dress line, designed exclusively by Dome, had a very 1 The Wu defendants assail several of Mon Cheri’s copyrights; however, they focus their attention on the copyright for the embroidery pattern on dress number 21917. 7 specific and identifiable look. (Mar. 26, 2008 Tr. at 13.) Lang’s testimony regarding the design process confirmed Carita’s testimony and he specifically testified about the design of dress number 21917. (Id. at 30-36.) Dome modified the embroidery and bead patterns several times before the design team accepted the final product. She changed the thread color and type several times as well. (Id. at 32; Apr. 1, 2008 Tr. at 35.) Lang observed her create the basic sketch for the embroidery and bead patterns and the modifications were based on this first sketch.2 (Mar. 26, 2008 Tr. at 32-35.) None of the design team had seen an embroidery and bead pattern of that nature prior to Dome’s 2 On appeal, the Wu defendants seek a new trial on the ground that the District Court’s denial of their discovery motion regarding Dome’s sketches resulted in an unfair trial. This challenge lacks merit. It appears that neither of the parties engaged in much discovery until approximately two months before trial. Both parties then filed discovery-related motions, including the motion now at issue on appeal. The parties stipulated to a discovery schedule (including depositions of key witnesses, such as Wu, Lang, and Dome) and to the voluntary withdrawal of their motions. (A-I at 916-19.) The Wu defendants discovered that Dome created sketches during their deposition of her, which occurred just two weeks before trial. Dome stated that no one from Mon Cheri had asked her to produce the sketches but that Mon Cheri would have duplicates of anything in her possession. Dome indicated that most of her records were kept in her basement and were destroyed by flooding. Under these circumstances, we will not fault the District Court for determining that no discovery violation occurred. Moreover, the Wu defendants did not raise this discovery issue with the District Court until their post-trial motion for a new trial. The Wu defendants argue that Mon Cheri ignored a document request served on June 3, 2006. It is unclear whether this request was actually served on that date. The document is dated May 3, 2006, and was not filed with the District Court until March 23, 2008. 8 creation. (Apr. 1, 2008 Tr. at 38.) Mon Cheri received industry awards for dress number 21917. Dome testified that her embroidery and bead patterns are inspired by observing her surroundings, including natural objects such as the sediment patterns on a rock. (Mar. 27, 2008 Tr. at 194.)3 Additionally, she sometimes found inspiration from public use elements. (Id. at 212.) She then used those elements and others to create the patterns on her dresses, which could involve rearranging elements, changing their size, style, and quantity, adding elements, and other design techniques. (Id. at 211-13.) She was not involved with the copyright application process, though she knew that Mon Cheri protected her work. Against this evidence, the Wu defendants failed to present any evidence of Carita’s or Lang’s intent to commit fraud on the Copyright Office. Nor was there any evidence of concealment generally. Further, the omission likely was not material, as the Copyright Office grants copyrights for derivative work. See Imperial Laces, 1998 WL 830630, at  n.4 (“Although required to do so, Imperial failed to identify lace design No. 8191 as a derivative work on its copyright application. As this appears to have been the result of mere inadvertence rather than fraud, however, this omission in no way invalidates Imperial’s copyright registration.”). 3 Dome was in China working for Mon Cheri on a new dress line during the trial. The parties presented her deposition testimony to the jury. The citations above refer to that testimony as presented during trial. 9
“The sine qua non of copyright is originality.” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991). “Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” Id. (citing 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990)). The “requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice.” Id.; see also Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer California, 937 F.2d 759, 765 (2d Cir. 1991) (explaining that “only an ‘unmistakable dash of originality need be demonstrated, high standards of uniqueness in creativity are dispensed with’”) (quoting Weissmann v. Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313, 1321 (2d Cir. 1989)). Further, “the mere borrowing of elements from previous works will not defeat copyrightability as long as the author has devised a new version of the work or has otherwise rearranged or transformed it so as to have made an original contribution.” CMM Cable Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 97 F.3d 1504, 1518 (1st Cir. 1996). The jury properly concluded that the works for which Mon Cheri sought copyrights were sufficiently original. According to Dome, she found inspiration from many sources and in the case of dress number 21917, she was inspired by a particular flower and vine drawing. She used these two common elements, but rearranged them, changed their size, color, and frequency, and created an embroidery and bead pattern that 10 she considered to be her original work. This work is sufficiently original under copyright law. See Folio, 937 F.2d at 764-65 (holding that a fabric design that consisted of roses that were available in the public domain, but were rearranged for the particular fabric design at issue “required little creative input” but still was “original work and, as such, copyrightable”); Imperial Laces, 1998 WL 830630, at  (holding that a lace design that incorporated a prior lace design within it, but that included a heavy liner, thereby giving the overall pattern a “reticulated or squiggly appearance” was sufficiently original). The testimony from Carita and Lang confirmed Dome’s description of her design process. Moreover, the Wu defendants’ own expert witnesses, two dress designers, stated that they designed their dresses in the same manner and considered them to be original. (Mar. 27, 2008 Tr. at 173-75; Mar. 31, 2008 Tr. at 166-68.) The cases that the Wu defendants rely upon are distinguishable. The copyright applicant in Garner v. Sawgrass Mills Ltd. Partnership, Civ. No. 3-94-307, 1994 WL 829978, -9 (D. Minn. Dec. 22, 1994), had first-hand knowledge of the prior work and failed to disclose it. Id. (invalidating for lack of originality as the applicant, who had a copy of the incorporated prior work in his possession, failed to disclose the incorporation of that prior work). Neither Carita nor Lang had any knowledge of the common elements that Dome incorporated. Further, in Towle Manufacturing Co. v. Godinger Silver Art Co., 612 F. Supp. 986, 991 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), the court invalidated a copyright for a baby bottle that consisted of five glass etchings, all of which were prior work widely available 11 on the market, to which the applicant made no modifications. Dome testified that the patterns that she created, which incorporated public use elements, were entirely original, as were her bead and thread color choices. These modifications are sufficient to support a finding of originality. See Folio, 937 F.2d at 764-65.