Design Ideas, Ltd v. The Yankee Candle Company, Inc.
Filing
19
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Plaintiff Design Ideas, Ltd.'s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 13 is ALLOWED. Plaintiff is directed to file the proposed First Amended Complaint by May 18, 2011. Defendant is directed to answer or otherwise plead by June 8, 2011. Defendant's request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant's request to dismiss the case is not properly before the Court. See written order entered by Judge Cudmore on 5/12/2011. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 12 May, 2011 10:09:41 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DESIGN IDEAS, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE YANKEE CANDLE
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 10-CV-3217
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Design Ideas, Ltd.’s
(Design Ideas) Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (d/e 13)
(Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is ALLOWED.
Defendant, The Yankee Candle Company, Inc. (Yankee Candle),
responds to the Motion by asking for dismissal of the action and sanctions
in its memorandum of law filed in opposition to the Motion. Opposition of
the Yankee Candle Company, Inc. to Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint (d/e 14) (Opposition), at 1. The request to dismiss is not
properly before this Court. A request for a court order, such as an order of
dismissal, must be made by motion, not in a brief in opposition. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 7(b). Yankee Candle also relies on matters outside the pleadings to
Page 1 of 9
support its request for dismissal. Opposition, Exhibits A-K; Sur-Reply of
the Yankee candle Company, Inc. In Opposition to Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint (d/e 17) (Sur-reply), Exhibits L-M. A request to dismiss
a claim based on matters outside the pleadings that are not excluded by
the Court must be treated as a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(d). Yankee Candle is directed to comply with the Local Rule 7.1(D) if
it wishes to file a summary judgment motion. The Court will consider
Yankee Candle’s arguments as a basis for its opposition to the Motion, but
will not address their inappropriate requests herein.
BACKGROUND
Design Ideas alleges that it has designed and owns the copyright to
original glass sculptures intended to be used as decorative votive candle
holders. Design Ideas named the sculptures “Regatta” sculptures. Design
Ideas alleges in the original Complaint that it registered its copyright in the
Regatta sculptures:
Design Ideas applied to register its copyrights in its Regatta
sculptures with the United States Copyright Office on February
27 and August 30, 2006, ultimately receiving Registration No.
VA 1-427-637. A true and correct copy of Design Ideas’ said
copyright registration and pertinent pages from the deposit /
identifying material is filed herewith, marked as Exhibit A, and
made by reference a part hereof.
Complaint (d/e 1), ¶ 8. Exhibit A attached to the Complaint contains the
copyright registration VA 1-427-637 (‘637 Registration) and the page from
Page 2 of 9
the Spring 2006 catalog deposited with the registration that contains a
picture of the Regatta sculptures. Parts of the sails on the Regatta
sculptures depicted in the catalog pages attached to the Complaint are
pastel shades of blue, orange, and yellow. Complaint, Exhibit A.
The proposed amendment adds a footnote to the quoted
paragraph 8:
1
Design Ideas’ February 27, 2006, application for an
earlier Regatta sculpture with white translucent sail was refused
registration on March 6, 2006 (Control No. 61-406-9290 (S)).
Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), Design Ideas gave notice of
this action to the Copyright Office, which has now declined to
intervene. Design Ideas respectfully disagrees with the
Copyright Office regarding the registrability of the subject
works. Design Ideas’ ‘637 registration is for the 3-D sculpture,
2-D artwork, photography and text first published in its Spring
2006 catalog, . . . .
Motion, attached Proposed First Amended Complaint, at 3, n.1. The
proposed First Amended Complaint is not otherwise materially different
from the original Complaint. Yankee Candle opposes the proposed
amendment.
ANALYSIS
Requests for leave to amend should be freely granted when justice
so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This Court may only deny a request
to amend the motion if: (1) the amendment would cause undue delay or
undue prejudice to Yankee Candle; (2) Design Ideas repeatedly failed to
Page 3 of 9
cure deficiencies by prior amendments; (3) Design Ideas is acting out of
bad faith or dilatory motives; or (4) the amendment would be futile. Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
After careful consideration, the Court finds no basis to deny the
request for leave to amend. The proposed footnote alleges that Design
Ideas filed an application on February 27, 2006, to register its copyright in a
white translucent Regatta sculpture which was denied (9290(S) Denial),
and that Design Ideas gave notice to the Copyright Office of this action. A
party may bring an action for copyright infringement after a copyright
registration application is denied, but must give the Register of Copyright
notice of the action. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The Register of Copyrights may
intervene, but is not required to do so. Id. After the proposed amendment,
Design Ideas alleges, as before, that it has a copyright in the Regatta
sculptures and that the copyright was registered copyright under the ‘637
Registration, but the new footnote provides additional information regarding
the 9290(S) Denial and Design Ideas’ notice to the Register of Copyrights
under § 411(a).
Yankee Candle asserts that Design Ideas is seeking to amend the
Complaint in bad faith and for a dilatory motive, and that the amendment
would cause undue prejudice to Yankee Candle. Yankee Candle argues
that Design Ideas is acting in bad faith and for a dilatory motive because
Page 4 of 9
the 9290(S) Denial establishes as a matter of law that Design Ideas has no
copyright in the Regatta sculptures. Yankee Candle argues that it will be
unduly prejudiced by the amendment because any continuation of this
action will cause it undue expense and harm. The Court disagrees.
To state a claim for copyright infringement, Design Ideas must allege
that it owns the copyright and that Yankee Candle wrongfully copied the
protected elements of the copyrighted material. Feist Publications, Inc., v.
Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Wildlife Exp.
Corp. v. Carol Wright Sales, Inc., 18 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 1994). Design
Ideas alleges that it owns the copyright in the Regatta sculptures.
Complaint, ¶¶ 6-7. Design Ideas further alleges that its copyright is
registered by virtue of the ‘637 Registration. Id. ¶ 8. Design Ideas alleges
that Yankee Candle has wrongfully copied the protected elements of the
Regatta sculptures. Id. ¶¶ 9-12. The proposed amendment does not
change the allegations. Furthermore, none of the documents submitted by
the parties indicates that the ‘637 Registration is invalid. The documents
indicate that the validity of the ‘637 Registration is currently under
reconsideration, but no final decision has been made. Opposition, Exhibit
J, Letter from John Ashley, Chief, Visual Arts & Recordation Division, U.S.
Copyright Office, to Garfield Goodrum, dated February 8, 2011; Plaintiff’s
Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
Page 5 of 9
(d/e 15), attached Declaration of Garfield Goodrum, ¶ 4 and Declaration
Exhibit D, Letter from Garfield Goodrum to John Ashley dated March 7,
2011. Design Ideas, thus, still may allege that its copyright is registered
under the ‘637 Registration. The proposed amendment does not
demonstrate bad faith, dilatory motive, or undue prejudice.
Furthermore, Design Ideas may still state a claim for copyright
infringement even if the Copyright Office ultimately invalidates the ‘637
Registration. Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act states that an applicant
that is denied copyright registration may still bring an action for
infringement if the applicant gives the Register of Copyrights notice of the
action. The proposed amendment alleges that Design Ideas provided this
notice.
Yankee Candle also argues Design Ideas is acting in bad faith
because the findings by the Copyright Office establish that Design Ideas
has no copyright in the Regatta sculptures. The Court disagrees. As
Yankee Candle concedes, the findings of the Copyright Office are not
controlling in this Court. Sur-reply, at 2, n.2. Thus, the 9290(S) Denial and
any subsequent factual findings by the Copyright Office, at best, create an
issue of fact at the pleading stage regarding the validity of Design Ideas’
copyright claim. Yankee Candle argues that the Copyright Office is entitled
to deference by this Court. Id. (citing Norris Industries, Inc. v. International
Page 6 of 9
Tel. & Tel. Corp., 696 F.2d 918, 922 (11th Cir. 1983); Paul Morelli Design,
Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 200 F.Supp.2d 482, 485 (E.D.Pa. 2002)). Deference
to an agency factual finding, however, does not resolve a factual issue at
the pleading stage. The cases on which Yankee Candle relies were
decided at summary judgment or at trial. Norris Indus., Inc., 696 F.2d at
919 (decided at summary judgment); Paul Morelli Design, Inc., 200
F.Supp.2d at 483 (decided at trial). The findings of the Copyright Office
were not a basis for dismissal at the pleading stage in either of these
cases.
Yankee Candle also asks for sanctions in the form of attorney fees
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Section 1927 authorizes the Court to
impose sanctions on a person who “multiplies the proceedings in any case
unreasonably and vexatiously,” by ordering the person to pay excess costs
and attorney fees incurred by the other parties in the case as a result of the
vexatious conduct. The Court sees no basis for the sanctions request.
Design Ideas alleges it has a copyright in the Regatta sculptures registered
in the ‘637 Registration. Design Ideas alleges that Yankee Candle
infringed on that copyright. The proposed amendment alleges that the
Copyright Office issued the 9290(S) Denial on a prior copyright application
of the white translucent sculpture and Design Ideas gave the required
notice of this action to the Register of Copyrights. Design Ideas is not
Page 7 of 9
alleging that its copyright was registered under the application that was
denied in the 9290(S) Denial.
Even if the 9290(S) Denial controls the validity of the registration of
Design Ideas’ alleged copyright, the proposed amendment alleges that
Design Ideas would be entitled to bring this action because it gave the
required notice. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The Court sees nothing vexatious
when § 411(a) authorizes a registration applicant to bring an infringement
claim even if a copyright registration application is rejected. The request
for sanctions under § 1927 is respectfully denied.
Yankee Candle may or may not have a basis to seek summary
judgment, or some other relief, based on the 9290(S) Denial and
subsequent proceedings before the Copyright Office. The Court does not
decide or comment on such issues. Yankee Candle should raise those
issues properly by motion in accordance with the Federal Rules and the
Local Rules. Given the liberal amendment policies embodied in Rule 15,
however, the Court finds no basis to deny the requested amendment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Design Ideas, Ltd.’s Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint (d/e 13) is ALLOWED. Plaintiff is directed to file the
proposed First Amended Complaint by May 18, 2011. Defendant is
directed to answer or otherwise plead by June 8, 2011. Defendant’s
Page 8 of 9
request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant’s request to dismiss the case
is not properly before the Court.
ENTER: May 12, 2011
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 9 of 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?