Universal Dyeing & Printing, Inc. v. US Textile Printing, Inc. et al

Filing 179

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 146 and GRANTING Defendants Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issues 153 . (jp)

Download PDF
1 2 O 3 4 NO JS-6 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 UNIVERSAL DYEING & PRINTING, INC., a California corporation , 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. US TEXTILE PRINTING, INC.; ROSS STORES, INC.; UNO CLOTHING, INC.; CNC CLOTHING/ dba: CANDY RAIN , 17 18 Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 09-09132 DDP (VBKx) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Motions filed on August 26, 2011 and August 27, 2011] 19 20 Plaintiff Universal Dyeing & Printing, Inc. (“Universal”) 21 alleges that Defendants US Textile Printing, Inc. (“USTP”), Uno 22 Clothing, Inc. (“UNO”), and Ross Stores, Inc. (“ROSS”) 23 (collectively “Defendants”) infringed two textile designs, for 24 which they hold the copyright. 25 cross motions for summary judgment as to both designs. 26 reviewing the papers submitted by the parties, considering the 27 arguments therein, and hearing oral arguments, the court GRANTS 28 Defendants’ motion and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff and Defendants filed After 1 I. Legal Standard 2 Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, the 3 discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show 4 that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the 5 movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." 6 P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 324 7 (1986). 8 non-moving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in 9 its favor. Fed. R. Civ. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 10 A genuine issue exists if "the evidence is such that a 11 reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party," 12 and material facts are those "that might affect the outcome of the 13 suit under the governing law." 14 fact exists "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a 15 rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." 16 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 17 587 (1986). 18 Id. at 248. No genuine issue of It is not enough for a party opposing summary judgment to 19 "rest on mere allegations or denials of his pleadings." 20 477 U.S. at 259. 21 pleadings to designate specific facts showing that there is a 22 genuine issue for trial. 23 existence of a scintilla of evidence" in support of the nonmoving 24 party's claim is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. 25 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. 26 Anderson, Instead, the non-moving party must go beyond the Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The "mere The Ninth Circuit has expressed disfavor for summary judgment 27 on questions of substantial similarity, but explained that “it is 28 nevertheless appropriate to grant summary judgment if, considering 2 1 the evidence and drawing all inferences from it in the light most 2 favorable to the nonmoving party, no reasonable jury could find 3 that the works are substantially similar in idea and expression.” 4 Pasillas v. McDonald’s Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 442 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 II. Discussion 6 A. 7 Universal is a Los Angeles based printing mill that markets to Background 8 the apparel industry textile designs for use on fabrics. 9 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 2.) (First Universal is the copyright 10 registrant of Copyright Certificate No. UA-12291. 11 alleges that Defendant “adopted, copied, reproduced, manufactured, 12 distributed and/or sold” textiles, i.e. clothes, with Universal’s 13 copyrighted design. 14 infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501. (Id. ¶¶ 28-34.) 15 (Id.) Universal Universal seeks relief for copyright Defendants move for summary adjudication of Universal’s claim 16 that Defendants have infringed Design UA-12291 and Design UA-13022. 17 Defendants contend that there is no substantial similarity between 18 the designs and garments at issue, that their designs were 19 independently created and copyrighted, and that they are entitled 20 to summary adjudication as to the Design UA-12291 and the Design 21 UA-13022 in their favor. 22 Plaintiff also moves for summary adjudication of its claims. 23 Plaintiff maintains that Defendants have admitted to copying 24 Plaintiff’s designs and that, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to 25 summary judgment in its favor. 26 8:11-20.) 27 B. (Pl.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Copyright infringement 28 3 1 To prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate 2 (1) ownership of the allegedly infringed work and (2) copying of 3 the protected elements of the work by the defendant. Narell v. 4 Freeman, 872 F.2d 907, 910 (9th Cir. 1989). 5 is difficult to prove, a plaintiff can satisfy the second element 6 by demonstrating that (a) the defendant had access to the allegedly 7 infringed work and (b) the two works are substantially similar in 8 both idea and expression of that idea. 9 Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 442 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 i. Because direct copying Pasillas v. McDonald's Access “Proof of access requires an opportunity to view or to copy 12 plaintiff's work.” 13 482 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted). 14 has been defined as a “reasonable” possibility that Defendants 15 viewed Plaintiff's Design. 16 776-77 (C.D. Cal. 1981). “[A] bare possibility is insufficient to 17 create a genuine issue of whether” Defendants copied Universal’s 18 design. 19 Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, “Opportunity” Jason v. Fonda, 526 F. Supp. 774, Id. at 777. Universal argues as a preliminary matter that it need not 20 prove access because Defendants have admitted to copying 21 Universal’s designs. 22 evidence to support this allegation. 23 asserts, with no further detail or support, that “Defendant [] 24 admitted to the copying.” 25 9:19.) 26 record in its eleven-page motion for summary judgment in its favor. 27 Defendant, on the other hand, denies any allegation that Defendant 28 admitted to copying Plaintiff’s designs. Universal, however, cites absolutely no Rather, Universal baldly (Pl.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Indeed, Universal does not make a single citation to the 4 (See Decl. Woo ¶ 3.) 1 Because Universal has not produced any direct evidence that 2 Defendants had access to Design UA-12291 or Design UA-13022 when 3 they created the allegedly infringing garments, the court proceeds 4 to consider whether circumstantial evidence supports a finding that 5 Defendants had access to the designs. 6 reasonable access is proven in one of two ways: (1) a particular 7 chain of events is established between the plaintiff's work and the 8 defendant's access to that work . . . or (2) the plaintiff's work 9 has been widely disseminated.” 10 “Circumstantial evidence of Three Boys Music, 212 F.3d at 482. Universal does not present any evidence that Defendants had 11 access to Design UA-12291 or Design UA-13022 through any particular 12 chain of events. 13 generously, perhaps argue that Design UA-12291 and UA-13022 have 14 been in wide enough dissemination that access can be inferred. 15 Universal does, construing its motion quite In Three Boys, the Ninth Circuit found that substantial 16 evidence supported a jury's finding of access where the copyrighted 17 song enjoyed significant radio airplay over 20 years. 18 212 F.3d at 483-85. 19 Entertainment, Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth 20 Circuit found that no widespread dissemination existed, despite the 21 fact that the tee-shirt design at issue in that case was available 22 at a display booth, on individuals wearing the tee-shirt, and via 23 the internet. 24 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit found there was no 25 evidence of widespread dissemination of a video even though 19,000 26 copies were sold over a 13-year period. 27 that Universal has failed to raise any genuine issue of material Three Boys, However, in Art Attack Ink, LLC v. MGA Similarly, in Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 28 5 Here, the court concludes 1 fact with respect to whether Defendants had access to Design UA- 2 12291 or UA-13022 through wide dissemination. 3 The court proceeds to consider whether the two works are 4 substantially similar in both idea and expression of that idea. 5 The court notes that even if Plaintiff had offered admissible 6 evidence in support of its allegations of direct copying and 7 access, the court must still proceed to consider substantial 8 similarity. 9 1175-78 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (proceeding to consider “substantial See Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 10 similarity” in a copyright action where defendants did not refute 11 allegations of direct access and copying). 12 similarity, there can be no infringement. 13 Corp., 66 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1140-41 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (explaining 14 that even if the plaintiff in that case “did have evidence of 15 direct copying . . . he still remains unexcused from demonstrating 16 the requisite similarity”). 17 18 ii. Without substantial See Berkla v. Corel Substantial similarity To determine whether two works are substantially similar, the 19 Ninth Circuit employs a two-part analysis — an extrinsic and an 20 intrinsic test. 21 specific expressive elements. 22 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 subjective comparison that focuses on “whether the ordinary, 24 reasonable audience” would find the works substantially similar in 25 the “total concept and feel of the works.” 26 Pictures & Televison, 16 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 1994). 27 applying the two-part test, this court “inquire[s] only whether 28 ‘the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially The “extrinsic test” is an objective comparison of Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 The “intrinsic test” is a 6 Kouf v. Walt Disney In 1 similar’ and “filter[s] out and disregard[s] the non-protectable 2 elements.” Cavalier, 297 F.3d at 822. 3 The court turns, therefore, to consider first whether Design 4 UA-12291 is substantially similar to Ross Product SKU 7879, which 5 contains Defendants’ design W-20039. 6 that no reasonable jurist could find substantial similarity between 7 the two textile patterns, Defendants are entitled to summary 8 judgment in their favor as to Design UA-12291. 9 Because the court concludes The garment and Plaintiff’s Design UA-12291 are indeed 10 similar; however, the two are not substantially similar. 11 observable elements of Universal’s design are: incomplete circle 12 motifs; circle motifs that interlock and overlap each other, 13 generally with a small circle and larger circle; brush stroke 14 effect background, which is not consistent in color and width; 15 areas of white background with no brush stroke effect; and 16 overlapping circles that are split roughly in half by distinct 17 coloration. 18 Defendant’s garment are: circle motifs; circle motifs that 19 interlock and overlap; enclosed diamond motifs; interlocking 20 diamond motifs; concentric diamond motifs; brush stroke effect 21 background, which is consistently vertical but varies in width; and 22 a range of colors that includes dark greens, olive, and blues. 23 (Id., Ex. D.) 24 (See Keller Decl., Ex. B.) The The observable elements of The two patterns do share some common elements – in 25 particular, they share a brush stroke background – however, they 26 are readily identifiable as distinct in their particulars. 27 Defendants’ design does not contain incomplete circle motifs. 28 Universal’s circles are colored in such a way as to split the color 7 1 within the circles. Defendants’ design has no such variation in 2 coloration within its circles. 3 none of Defendants’ circles or diamonds appear “filled in.” 4 Defendants’ design has diamond shapes and Universal’s does not. 5 The background brush strokes, while similar in technique, are not 6 themselves similar. 7 down the pattern within a particular stroke; Defendants’ individual 8 strokes are significantly more uniform on the vertical axis. That is, unlike Universal’s design, Universal’s strokes vary in width as one moves 9 The court proceeds to consider whether Design UA-13022 is 10 substantially similar to Ross Products SKU 8548 and SKU 3903, which 11 contains Defendants’ design W-20057 (i.e. the “water color 12 design”). 13 could find substantial similarity between the two textile patterns, 14 Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor as to 15 Design UA-13022. 16 Because the court concludes that no reasonable jurist Plaintiff’s Design UA-13022 and Defendants’ garment SKU 8548 17 do share an initial appearance of similarity. 18 involve swaths of color or brush strokes. 19 Summary Judgment, Ex. 5.) 20 strokes that end in a blunt flat top. 21 in contrast, end in jagged ends. 22 two-toned. 23 strokes are also patchy and thin in places, causing the background 24 color to come through the brush stroke in places. 25 brush strokes are more solid and contain fewer places of perceived 26 transparency. 27 similar. (See Defs.’ Motion for Plaintiff’s design, however, has brush Defendants’ brush strokes, Defendants’ brush strokes are Plaintiffs are monotone. (Id.) Both patterns (Id.) Plaintiff’s brush Defendants’ The two patterns are not substantially 28 8 1 In sum, because no reasonable person could find that the two 2 designs share substantial similarities with the garments at issue 3 and because there is no evidence of Defendants’ access to 4 Universal’s Design UA-12291 or UA-13022, Defendants are entitled to 5 summary judgment as to Universal’s claims related to infringement 6 of Design UA-12291's and UA-13022's copyright. 7 III. Conclusion 8 For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Defendants’ 9 Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issues and DENIES Plaintiff’s 10 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Claims. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: September 13, 2011 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?