Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:537
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`Present:
`
`The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
`
`Wendy K. Hernandez
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Not Present
`Court Reporter
`
`n/a
`Tape No.
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):
`
`Proceedings:
`
`Not Present
`Not Present
`(In Chambers) Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
`Adjudication
`
`Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication. The Court
`finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-
`15. After considering the moving and opposing papers, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Plaintiff Randy Stratton (“Plaintiff”) is the author and illustrator of the book “Build This
`Bong: Instructions and Diagrams for 40 Bongs, Pipes and Hookahs” (“Build This Bong” or the
`“Book”). See Compl. ¶ 12. Plaintiff applied for and received copyright registrations for the
`Book itself, TX 6612087, and for the underlying illustrations, VA 1422242. See id.; see also
`Stratton Decl., Exs. A, C (the Copyright Registrations). Ringing true to its name, the Book
`explains that a bong can consist of almost anything that allows a user to inhale the smoke of a
`burning substance after it has gone through, and been cooled by, a small amount of water. See
`Horwitz Decl., Ex 1 at 9. To show how truly easy it is to create a bong, Plaintiff’s book includes
`the materials needed and the steps involved to create forty different bongs, as well as
`mechanical-type illustrations showing the bongs made out of, inter alia, honey bears, apples,
`cantaloupes, dryer hoses and crushed aluminum cans. See Horwitz Decl., Ex. 1.
`
`Defendant Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Upper Playground”)
`designs and distributes clothing. See Compl. ¶ 7. It is undisputed that in 2008, Upper
`Playground obtained a copy of the Book and gave it to a designer with the instruction “to take
`the designs from the book to create a T-Shirt for Upper Playground.” See Def’s Statement of
`
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:538
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`Genuine Issues of Fact (“SGIF”) Nos. 6-8; Linde Decl., Ex. J at 32:18-21.1 There is also no
`dispute that Defendant then sold the t-shirt (the “Shirt”) imprinted with the drawings contained
`in the Book. See SGIF Nos. 9-10. On July 6, 2009, attorneys for Plaintiff sent Defendant a
`letter stating that Defendant’s t-shirt infringed on Plaintiff’s copyright with a request that
`Defendant immediately stop selling the Shirt. See Linde Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. H. Defendant continued
`to sell the Shirt until September 22, 2009. See id., Ex. E at 4:11-12.
`
`On December 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with this Court alleging that
`Defendant’s Shirt infringed on his valid copyright. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s
`Motion for Summary Adjudication regarding copyright infringement and willfulness. For the
`reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.2
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) establishes that summary judgment is proper only
`when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that
`there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
`matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the
`absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
`256, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). If the moving party satisfies this burden, the
`party opposing the motion must set forth specific facts showing that there remains a genuine
`issue for trial. See id. at 257. A non-moving party who bears the burden of proving an essential
`element to its case at trial must sufficiently establish a genuine dispute of fact with respect to
`that element or face summary judgment. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23,
`106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). An issue of fact is a genuine issue if it can reasonably
`be resolved in favor of either party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250-51. Furthermore, “a district
`court has the responsibility to construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
`party.” Nelson v. City of Davis, 571 F.3d 924, 928 (9th Cir. 2009).
`
`1 See the attached appendix for a comparison of Plaintiff’s work and Defendant’s work.
`2 Also before the Court is Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment regarding non-
`infringement based on the invalidity of Plaintiff’s copyright. The Court’s determination that
`Defendant’s shirt infringes Plaintiff’s copyright necessarily moots Defendant’s Cross-Motion.
`Moreover, the Court notes that the Cross-Motion is untimely, a separate grounds for denial. See
`Standing Order ¶ 6(c) (requiring that a motion for summary judgment be filed at least forty-nine
`days prior to the hearing date).
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 2 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:539
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`III.
`
`Discussion
`
`Plaintiff’s only claim in this case is for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101, et
`
`seq.
`
`A.
`
`Requirements for Copyright Infringement
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102 provides that:
`
`Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of
`authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now or later developed, from
`which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or
`with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following
`categories: . . .
`
`(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102 (emphasis added). Furthermore, subject to certain exceptions,
`
`the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any
`of the following:
`
`(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; . . .
`
`(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
`pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual
`images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted
`work publicly.
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 (emphasis added). Also, “[c]opyright in a work protected under this title vests
`initially in the author or authors of the work.” 17 U.S.C. § 201(a).
`
`In a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement, “[a] copyright plaintiff must prove (1)
`
`ownership of the copyright; and (2) infringement - that the defendant copied protected elements
`of the plaintiff’s work.” Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2000),
`cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1126 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Plaintiffs must
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`Page 3 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:540
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct infringement: (1) they must show
`ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) they must demonstrate that the alleged
`infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. §
`106.") (citation omitted).
`
`1.
`
`Copyright Validity
`
`The first step in any copyright infringement analysis is to determine whether the
`purported copyright is valid. See Three Boys Music, 212 F.3d at 481. As a starting point, the
`Court notes that a “certification of a registration made before or within five years after first
`publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and
`of the facts stated in the certificate.” 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). Presenting a certification of copyright
`registration thus “shifts to the defendant the burden to prove the invalidity of the plaintiff’s
`copyrights.” Entm’t Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217
`(9th Cir. 1997).
`
`“Registration of a copyright does not create an irrefutable presumption of validity,”
`Durham Indus. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 908 (2d Cir. 1986), and to rebut that presumption,
`“an infringement defendant must simply offer some evidence or proof to dispute or deny the
`plaintiff’s prima facie case of infringement,” Entm’t Research Group, 122 F.3d at 1217. Among
`other reasons, a challenge to an alleged copyright can be based on the improper protection of: (1)
`an unoriginal work, (2) a useful article, or (3) an idea, method or procedure. See 17 U.S.C. §§
`101-102. In addition, if copyright registration was a product of fraud, the holder may be barred
`from pursuing an infringement action. See Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 1335
`(9th Cir. 1984).
`
`In this case, Plaintiff obtained the copyrights in 2007, and the Court treats them as
`presumptively valid. Stratton Decl. ¶ 3.
`
`2.
`
`Violation of an Exclusive Right
`
`The next step in the infringement analysis is to determine whether the “alleged infringers
`violate[d] at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106.”
`Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1159. Those rights include reproduction, adaptation, public distribution,
`public performance and public display. 17 U.S.C. § 106.
`
`B. Whether Upper Playground Infringed Plaintiff’s Copyright
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`
`Page 4 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:541
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`Defendant does not challenge, indeed concedes, that it took the illustrations from
`Plaintiff’s book and included them on the Shirt it offered for sale. See SGIF Nos. 8-9 (agreeing
`with Plaintiff’s statements that Defendant “used illustrations from the Book . . . in preparing the
`layout for the T-Shirt” and that the Shirt “bears drawings contained” in the Book). The only
`dispute in the case, therefore, is whether Plaintiff’s copyright covering the illustrations in the
`Book is valid. Defendant challenges it on four separate grounds: (1) the illustrations are not
`“original,” (2) the illustrations depict “useful articles,” (3) Plaintiff’s copyright registration is a
`result of fraud, and (4) the illustrations show an “idea, method, or procedure” that is not covered
`by copyright law. The Court addresses each in turn.
`
`1.
`
`Originality
`
`Defendant first contends that Plaintiff’s copyright is invalid because the Book’s
`illustrations are not “original.” See Opp’n 3:17-8:17. More specifically, Defendant argues that
`bongs are ubiquitous smoking devices and that because Plaintiff’s “diagrams demonstrate
`various ways to construct a common smoking device” without adding anything “original to the
`construction of a bong,” the illustrations cannot be protected as original works. Id. 6:16-24; see
`also id. 7:7-8:12 (arguing that bongs all contain “a bowl, a stem, a cylinder, and a carb” and that
`Plaintiff’s design adds no “substantial originality to the basic, age-old design of a bong”).
`Defendant’s argument, however, is unavailing as it seemingly conflates copyright protection
`with patent protection.
`
`A valid copyright exists in “original works of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 102.
`“Originality, 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.” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340,
`345, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991) (internal citations omitted). “The requisite level
`of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice.” Id. Copyright protections can
`extend to depictions of common goods such as Campbell’s soup cans, see United Feature
`Syndicate, Inc. v. Koons, 814 F. Supp. 370, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), hardware merchandise, see
`Lin-Brook Builders Hardware v. Gertler, 352 F.2d 298 (9th Cir. 1965), geography, see Ventura
`County v. Blackburn, 362 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1966), or even a human face, like that of Oscar
`Wilde, see Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 54, 4 S. Ct. 279, 28 L. Ed.
`349 (1884). It is only the work that need be original, not necessarily the subject of the work.
`Justice Holmes made this point when he wrote that even if certain illustrations had been “drawn
`from the life, that fact would not deprive them of protection. The opposite proposition would
`mean that the portrait by Velasquez of Whistler was common property because others might try
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`Page 5 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:542
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`their hand on the same face. Others are free to copy the original. They are not free to copy the
`copy.” Bleistein v. Donaldson, 188 U.S. 239, 251, 23 S. Ct. 298, 47 L. Ed. 460 (1903) (emphasis
`added).
`
`There is no dispute that Plaintiff created, rather than copied, the illustrations of the bongs
`in the Book. And while the drawings depict arguably common items, Plaintiff presents evidence
`that he depicted the bongs in his own way, using the lines, shapes and angles of his choosing.
`See Mot. 5:13-15; see also Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 323 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding
`no copyright infringement where two photographs depict the same glass bottle, but differ in
`“lighting,” “angles,” “shadows,” “highlighting,” “reflections,” and “background”).
`
`Defendant’s reliance on the Second Circuit’s Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy
`Corporation does little to support its case. In that case, Tomy Corporation accused Durham
`Industries of copying certain Tomy toys depicting various Walt Disney characters. See Durham
`Indus. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 908 (2d Cir. 1980). Although Tomy had copyrighted its
`toys, Durham successfully defended Tomy’s infringement claim by arguing that Tomy’s
`copyrights were invalid as the toys were lacking originality. Id. at 910. Originality was the key
`in the case because Disney held a presumptively valid copyright in its characters, meaning that
`in order for Tomy’s copyright to be valid in those same characters—known as a “derivative
`work”—Tomy’s work must have added something original. Id. In this case, Defendant presents
`no evidence that the depictions of the bongs are derivative works requiring differentiation from
`an already copyrighted work like the toys in Durham Industries.
`
`Plaintiff wisely does not claim that he invented bongs. Instead, Plaintiff only claims that
`his depictions of various bongs are original and his own. Defendant’s suggestion that Plaintiff’s
`illustrations lack originality because they do not add anything to the “basic, age-old design of a
`bong,” misses the point and is not sufficient to overcome the copyright’s presumptive validity.
`Opp’n 8:14-17; see also L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486, 490 (2d Cir. 1976)
`(explaining that “originality” in copyrights law is not the same as “novelty” in patent law).
`
`2.
`
`Useful Articles
`
`Defendant’s next argument is that because Plaintiff’s illustrations depict bongs, which are
`“useful articles,” the illustrations are not protected by copyright law. See Opp’n 8:18-11:2.
`Defendant misinterprets the reach of copyright law. As defined by the Copyright Act, a “useful
`article,” which is generally not afforded copyright protection, is “an article having an intrinsic
`utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`
`Page 6 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:543
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`information.” See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a)(5). Built in to the definition, however, is the idea
`that works “intended only to portray” a useful article are not subject to the useful-article
`restriction. See Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 616 F.3d 904, 916 n.12 (9th Cir. 2010). Even
`assuming that a bong is a “useful article” (which likely depends on who one asks), Plaintiff’s
`illustrations are nothing but drawn portrayals of that “useful article,” lacking “intrinsic utilitarian
`function[s]” of their own. As a result, Defendant’s useful article argument fails and does not
`rebut Plaintiff’s copyright’s presumptive validity.3
`
`3.
`
`Fraud in the Registration Process
`
`As another independent way to invalidate Plaintiff’s copyright, Defendant argues that
`Plaintiff did not provide full and accurate information to the Copyright Office, and that if he did
`so, “his application would have been rejected.” Opp’n 12:11-12. More specifically, Defendant
`claims that Plaintiff misled the Copyright Office by stating only that “illustrations” are in his
`book, omitting the fact that there are also “old photographs of unknown origin” as well as
`“photographs which appear to have been altered by the process of photoshopping.” Opp’n
`11:18-19. In addition, Plaintiff did not disclose that the copyright was to cover “useful articles,”
`which are not subject to copyright protections. Id. 8:8-13.
`
`Taking Plaintiff’s second argument first, the Court already rejected the contention that
`Plaintiff’s copyright covers “useful articles.” The derivative argument of fraud on the Copyright
`Office similarly fails. As far as other omissions are concerned, the Court notes that “inadvertent
`mistakes on registration certificates do not invalidate a copyright and thus do not bar
`infringement actions, unless . . . the claimant intended to defraud the Copyright Office by
`making the misstatement.” Urantia Found. v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1997).
`Defendant offers no evidence that Plaintiff’s alleged omissions were made with knowledge and
`intent to defraud the Copyright Office. Accordingly, there is no material issue of fact related to
`Plaintiff’s alleged fraudulent conduct and there is no basis to invalidate the copyright on these
`grounds.
`
`4.
`
`Ideas, Methods of Operation and Concepts
`
`3 Defendant does not argue or present any evidence that the illustrations, as diagrams, are useful
`in and of themselves—only that the bongs are useful articles. As a result, the Court does not
`consider that argument but notes that “maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical
`drawings, including architectural plans” are subject to copyright protections “insofar as their
`form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned.” See 17 U.S.C. § 101.
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`
`Page 7 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:544
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`Defendant’s final argument is that because the illustrations show “a method or procedure
`for assembling bongs,” they cannot be subject to copyright protection. Opp’n 14:4-6. The
`Copyright Act provides that copyright protection does not extend to any “idea, procedure,
`process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
`which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). However, there
`is an “idea/expression dichotomy” that distinguishes the actual ideas, processes, concepts, or
`other § 102(b) factors, from the expression of those same things. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537
`U.S. 186, 219, 123 S. Ct. 769, 154 L. Ed. 2d 683 (2003). For example, the process of making
`wine by crushing grapes is not entitled to copyright protection, but a painting of a person
`excitedly jumping up and down, barefoot, in a wooden barrel, located in the middle of a
`vineyard, under the Tuscan sun is. See Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274
`F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960) (L. Hand, J.) (“[T]here can be no copyright in the ‘ideas’ disclosed
`but only in their ‘expression’”).
`
`Plaintiff did not seek and receive copyright protection for the process of making a bong.
`Nor is he entitled to sue those people who follow the recommendations in the book and build the
`bongs depicted. What Plaintiff is entitled to, however, is to seek legal remedies from those
`people who reproduce, verbatim, the original illustrations he created depicting those bongs. The
`concept of a bong and the process followed in making a bong are outside the reach of copyright
`law, but the artistic expression of the concept and process are not. Plaintiff sought protection for
`the latter, not the former.
`
`Defendant presents no legally relevant evidence sufficient to invalidate Plaintiff’s
`copyright. Furthermore, Defendant concedes that it used the illustrations from Plaintiff’s book
`on the Shirt it offered for sale. Accordingly, there is no need for the Court to analyze whether
`there was infringement—Defendant admitted to that. The only thing left for the Court to resolve
`is whether Defendant’s conduct was “willful.”
`
`C. Willful Copyright Infringement
`
`Under the Copyright Act, a Plaintiff who proves “willful” copyright infringement is
`entitled to elevated statutory damages. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). “Willful,” as used by the
`Copyright Act, means “knowledge that the defendant’s conduct constituted an act of
`infringement,” Peer Int’l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc., 909 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990) cert.
`denied 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S. Ct. 1019, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1100 (1991), or that the defendants “acted
`with reckless disregard as to whether they were [infringing],” In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702, 707
`(9th Cir. 2008). In order “to refute evidence of willful infringement, [a defendant] must not only
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`Page 8 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:545
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`establish its good faith belief in the innocence of its conduct, it must also show that it was
`reasonable in holding such a belief.” Peer Int’l Corp., 909 F.2d at 1332.
`
`In this case, Plaintiff presents undisputed evidence that his attorneys sent Defendant a
`letter stating that the Shirt infringes on Plaintiff’s copyright, SGIF No. 12, that Defendant
`received the letter, id. No. 13, and that Defendant continued to sell the Shirt for over two
`months, id. No. 14. Moreover, Defendant not only fails to address Plaintiff’s argument that the
`conduct was willful, but, more importantly, fails to provide its own rebuttal evidence of its
`reasonable, good faith belief that its conduct was not infringing.
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Based on the foregoing, there is no reasonable dispute about the following material facts:
`(1) Plaintiff owns a valid, registered copyright in his illustrations; (2) Defendant willfully copied
`the illustrations from the book onto the Shirt and offered it for sale without Plaintiff’s
`authorization. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to summary adjudication on those issues.
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 9 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:546
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`APPENDIX
`
`Defendant’s Shirt
`
`The “Apple Bong” in Plaintiff’s book (Left) and on Defendant’s Shirt (Right)
`
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 10 of 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:09-cv-08796-PSG-PJW Document 58 Filed 12/16/10 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:547
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`O
`
`#32
`
`Case No.
`Title
`
`CV 09-8796 PSG (PJWx)
`Randy Stratton v. Upper Playground Enterprises, Inc.
`
`Date December 16, 2010
`
`The “Vaporizer” in Plaintiff’s Book (Left) and Defendant’s Shirt (Right)
`
`The “Acrylic Hookah” in Plaintiff’s Book (Left) and Defendant’s Shirt (Right)
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV 09-8796 (12/10)
`
`Page 11 of 11