Opinion ID: 77009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: AMH and Blazer's Infringement

Text: 26 Because we agree with the district court that Maverick's Pathfinder 2200 V-Hull design is not protected under the VHDPA, we need not address Maverick's infringement claim. See 17 U.S.C. § 1309(a). The district court, however, addressed it for the sake of argument; so, we will discuss it briefly. 27 Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1309(e), [a] design shall not be deemed to have been copied from a protected design if it is original and not substantially similar in appearance to a protected design. Here, the record demonstrates that AMH and Blazer's boats are original and not substantially similar in appearance to Maverick's Pathfinder 2200 V-Hull design. 28 At trial, the district court heard and credited/discredited witness testimony on this issue and viewed and considered photographs and other evidence of the boats' designs. After reviewing the record, we cannot say that those findings are clearly erroneous. In fact, the evidence at trial clearly showed that the differences between the hulls of AMH's Pro-Line 22 and Maverick's Pathfinder 2200 V-Hull were substantially greater than the minimal differences between the designs in Maverick's invalid DVH 0049 and DVH 0056. Thus, at a minimum, Maverick cannot credibly claim that DVH 0056 is valid over the admittedly invalid DVH 0049, while at the same time claiming that AMH's accused boat (which is substantially different) is an infringement of DVH 0056.