Design Collection Inc v. Ross Stores Inc et al

Filing 51

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Order re: Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause 50 . The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement against CAFA Seoul, and that the claims against CAFA Seoul must therefore be DISMISSED with prejudice. See document for details. (smo)

LINK: 50
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-8899 GAF (ASx)

Title

Design Collection Inc v. Ross Stores Inc et al

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 30, 2014

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Stephen Montes Kerr
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Design Collection, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) response to the
Court’s order to show cause why the claims of copyright infringement against Defendant CAFA
Seoul Texprint, Inc. (“CAFA Seoul”) should not be dismissed. (Docket No. 50 [Plaintiff’s
Response to Order to Show Cause (“Response”)].) On June 5, 2014, the Court issued an order
denying Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against CAFA Seoul because Plaintiff “failed to
demonstrate that CAFA Seoul’s accused design is substantially similar to [Plaintiff’s] DC-10422
design,” and therefore could not “establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement against
CAFA Seoul.” (Docket No. 49 [6/5/14 Order] at 6.) And because there appeared to be no
possibility that CAFA Seoul’s design infringes on DC-10422, the Court also ordered Plaintiff to
show cause why the claims against CAFA Seoul should not be dismissed. (Id. at 7.)
The Court has now reviewed Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause,
including a side-by-side comparison of Plaintiff’s DC-10422 design and CAFA Seoul’s design,
which appears to be very different from the image submitted to the Court with Plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment. (Compare Response at 4 with Docket No. 45 [Motion for Default
Judgment] at 7.) However, even after considering this new image, the Court still finds that
Plaintiff fails to show that the designs are substantially similar under the Ninth Circuit’s two-part
test for substantial similarity for all the reasons articulated in this Court’s order denying

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK: 50
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-8899 GAF (ASx)

Date

Title

June 30, 2014

Design Collection Inc v. Ross Stores Inc et al

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (See 6/5/14 Order at 4-6.) Accordingly, the Court finds
that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement against CAFA Seoul,
and that the claims against CAFA Seoul must therefore be DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2