`
`O
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CV 18-06543-RSWL-AGR
`
`ORDER re: Defendants’
`Motion for Summary
`Judgment [63]
`
`)))))))))))))))))))
`
`ROMEX TEXTILES, INC., a
`California Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`HK WORLDWIDE, LLC, d/b/a
`HOT KISS, a New York
`Limited Liability Company;
`APOLLO APPAREL NY, LLC, a
`New York Limited Liability
`Company; ROSS STORES, INC.,
`a Delaware Corporation; R&R
`GOLDMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.,
`d/b/a DISCOVERY CLOTHING
`COMPANY, an Illinois
`Corporation; SPECIALTY
`RETAILERS, INC., a Texas
`Corporation; BEALL’S OUTLET
`STORES, INC., a Florida
`Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
`inclusive,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Romex Textiles, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings
`
`this copyright infringement Action against Defendants
`
`1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:893
`
`Apollo Apparel NY, LLC; Ross Stores, Inc.; R&R Goldman
`
`Associates, Inc., d/b/a Discovery Clothing Company;
`
`Specialty Retailers, Inc.; Beall’s Outlet Stores, Inc.;
`
`and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants”).1
`
`Am. Compl., ECF No. 46. Currently before the Court is
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”)
`
`[63]. Having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining
`
`to this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS
`
`FOLLOWS: the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion.
`
`A.
`
`Factual Background
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff is a California corporation. Am. Compl.
`
`¶ 4. Defendants are a series of corporations domiciled
`
`in New York, Delaware, Illinois, Texas, and Florida.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 6-10. Plaintiff is the owner and author of a
`
`two-dimensional artwork (the “Subject Design”) called
`
`“AE_T1697" under the title of work “AE Design Studio 3-
`
`31-2014". Decl. of Shawn Binafard (“Binafard Decl.”)
`
`ISO Pl.’s Opp’n ¶ 4, ECF No. 67-1. On March 31, 2014,
`
`Plaintiff was granted a copyright for the Subject
`
`Design, with Registration No. VA 1-903-180. Pl.’s
`
`Opp’n, Ex. A (“Subject Design Registration”), ECF No.
`
`67-3. The Subject Design is a floral design, which is
`
`depicted below. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Mot.”), Ex.
`
`1 Plaintiff initially included HK Worldwide, LLC as a
`Defendant in this Action. HK Worldwide, LLC was dismissed
`without prejudice by stipulation on March 25, 2019. ECF No. 53.
`
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:894
`
`B (the “Subject Design”), ECF No. 67-4.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that Defendants manufactured,
`
`purchased, sold, or marketed two garments (the “Accused
`
`Designs”) which infringe the Subject Design. The two
`
`allegedly infringing garments are depicted below, and
`
`entitled Version 1 and Version 2, respectively.
`
`Version 1
`
`3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:895
`
`Version 2
`
`
`
`Mot., Ex. C (“Accused Designs”), ECF No. 63-5.
`
`Defendants deny that they infringed the Subject Design,
`
`and bring this Motion alleging that they are entitled
`
`to judgment as a matter of law because the Subject
`
`Design and Accused Designs are not substantially
`
`similar. See generally Mot.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint [1] on July 30, 2018
`
`and then filed its Amended Complaint [46] on March 6,
`
`2019. Defendants timely filed their Answers to the
`
`Amended Complaint [55-59], denying Plaintiff’s
`
`allegations and asserting affirmative defenses,
`
`including lack of substantial similarity between the
`
`Subject Design and Accused Designs.
`
`On May 28, 2019, Defendants filed the instant
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment [63], alleging that the
`
`Subject Design and Accused Designs are not
`
`4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:896
`
`substantially similar. Plaintiff filed its Opposition
`
`on June 4, 2019 [67]. Defendants filed their Reply
`
`[68] on June 10, 2019. Plaintiff then filed a Sur-
`
`Reply [69] in support of its Opposition, in which
`
`Plaintiff filed evidentiary objections to Defendants’
`
`Reply, responses to Defendants’ evidentiary objections,
`
`and a Statement of Controverted Facts. Defendants
`
`filed an Objection to Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply on June 17,
`
`2019 [70].
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant
`
`shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
`
`material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
`
`a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is
`
`“material” for purposes of summary judgment if it might
`
`affect the outcome of the suit, and a “genuine” issue
`
`exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact-
`
`finder could return a verdict for the nonmovant.
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 244, 248
`
`(1986). The evidence, and any inferences based on
`
`underlying facts, must be viewed in the light most
`
`favorable to the nonmovant. Twentieth Century-Fox Film
`
`Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 715 F.2d 1327, 1328-29 (9th Cir.
`
`1983). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the
`
`court’s function is not to weigh the evidence, but only
`
`to determine if a genuine issue of material fact
`
`exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
`
`5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:897
`
`Where the nonmovant bears the burden of proof at
`
`trial, the movant need only prove that there is no
`
`evidence to support the nonmovant’s case. In re Oracle
`
`Corp. Secs. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`If the movant satisfies this burden, the burden then
`
`shifts to the nonmovant to produce admissible evidence
`
`showing a triable issue of fact. Id.; Nissan Fire &
`
`Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03
`
`(9th Cir. 2000); see also Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt.
`
`Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 805–06 (1999)(quoting Celotex
`
`Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).
`
`B.
`
`Analysis
`
`1.
`
`Objections
`
`a.
`
`Plaintiff’s Objections
`
`Plaintiff filed several evidentiary objections to
`
`the Declarations of Edward Alfaks and Philip A. Byler.
`
`See Pl.’s Evid. Objs., ECF Nos. 67:9-10. The Court
`
`does not rely on the objected-to evidence, and thus the
`
`Court DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff’s objections.
`
`b.
`
`Defendants’ Objections
`
`Defendants object to Exhibits D and E to the
`
`Declaration of Chan Yong Jeong—which contain side-by-
`
`side comparisons of specific flowers in the Subject
`
`Design and Accused Designs—on the grounds that the
`
`Exhibits are misleading since they are “black and white
`
`unclear presentations of small aspects of the larger
`
`designs at issue that do not show the larger designs.”
`
`See Defs.’ Evid. Objs., ECF No. 68-7. First,
`
`6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:898
`
`Defendants cite no authority for their position that
`
`the Court is unable to analyze individual aspects of
`
`the designs, and as will be discussed further, case law
`
`suggests otherwise. In any event, contrary to
`
`Defendants’ assertion, Exhibits D and E contain both
`
`zoomed-in images of certain flowers in the designs and
`
`larger images of the floral patterns as a whole.
`
`Second, the images depicted in Exhibits D and E are not
`
`black and white as Defendants contend. Nonetheless,
`
`the Court acknowledges that the coloring of the images
`
`in Exhibits D and E differ from the coloring of the
`
`Subject Design as it is depicted in Plaintiff’s Swatch
`
`Sheet.2 However, the Court only relies on Exhibits D
`
`and E to evaluate the shape, shading, and structure of
`
`the flowers, not their color. As such, the Court
`
`DENIES Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections.
`
`Defendants also object to Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply
`
`papers, in which Plaintiff responded to Defendants’
`
`evidentiary objections, asserted new evidentiary
`
`objections to evidence presented in Defendants’ Reply,
`
`and filed a Statement of Disputed Facts. See ECF No.
`
`70. The Court does not rely on Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply
`
`papers, and thus the Court DENIES as MOOT Defendants’
`
`Objection to them.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis
`
`To establish copyright infringement, Plaintiff must
`
`2 Plaintiff’s Swatch Sheet of the Subject Design is attached
`to Defendants’ Motion as Exhibit B. See ECF No. 63-4.
`7
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:899
`
`prove “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2)
`
`copying of constituent elements of the work that are
`
`original.” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Servs.
`
`Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). To satisfy the copying
`
`element, Plaintiff must show either “(1) that the two
`
`works in question are strikingly similar, or (2) that
`
`the works are substantially similar and that Defendants
`
`had access to the Subject [Design].” Malibu Textiles,
`
`Inc. v. Label Lane Int’l, Inc., 922 F.3d 946, 952 (9th
`
`Cir. 2019)(quotations omitted). Defendants move for
`
`summary judgment on the basis that there is no
`
`substantial similarity of the Subject Design and
`
`Defendants’ designs.
`
`a.
`
`Ownership of Valid Copyright
`
`“A certificate from the U.S. Register of Copyrights
`
`‘constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of
`
`the copyright.’” Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc.,
`
`No. CV 16-4295-DMG (JEMx), 2017 WL 5635009, at *6 (C.D.
`
`Cal. Aug. 18, 2017)(quoting 17 U.S.C. § 410(c)).
`
`Plaintiff’s design was registered with the United
`
`States Copyright Office, and thus validity of the
`
`copyright is presumed. See Subject Design
`
`Registration. To overcome this presumption, the burden
`
`shifts to Defendants to “rebut the facts set forth in
`
`the copyright certificate.” Id. (quoting United
`
`Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:900
`
`1257 (9th Cir. 2011)). Defendants fail to do so,3 and
`
`in any event, assert that their Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment is “based solely on the lack of substantial
`
`similarity between the allegedly copyrighted design and
`
`the allegedly infringing design . . . .” Defs.’ Reply
`
`5:15-17, ECF No. 68. Thus, the Court turns to the
`
`copying element, and evaluates the similarity of the
`
`designs.
`
`b.
`
`Copying by Defendants
`
`“Summary Judgment is not highly favored on
`
`questions of substantial similarity in copyright
`
`cases.” L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Aeropostale,
`
`Inc., 676 F.3d 841, 848 (9th Cir. 2012). “Where
`
`reasonable minds could differ on the issue of
`
`substantial similarity . . . summary judgment is
`
`improper.” Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1355 (9th
`
`Cir. 1990).
`
`“In assessing whether particular works are
`
`substantially similar, or strikingly similar, this
`
`Circuit applies a two-part analysis: the extrinsic test
`
`and the intrinsic test.” Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban
`
`3 At most, Defendants argue that the idea of a flower design
`is not protectable and that standard aspects of a flower design
`are not protectible. However, even if the idea of floral designs
`and certain elements of floral designs are not protectable,
`Plaintiff’s “original selection, coordination, and arrangement of
`such elements is protectible.” L.A. Printex Industries, Inc.,
`676 F.3d at 850 (“Because there is a wide range of expression for
`selecting, coordinating, and arranging floral elements in
`stylized fabric designs, copyright protection is broad and a work
`will infringe if it’s substantially similar to the copyrighted
`work.”)(quotations omitted).
`
`9
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:901
`
`Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir. 2017).
`
`“The extrinsic test requires plaintiffs to show overlap
`
`of concrete elements based on objective criteria, while
`
`the intrinsic test is subjective and asks whether the
`
`ordinary, reasonable person would find the total
`
`concept and feel of the works to be substantially
`
`similar.” Id. (quotations omitted). While the Court
`
`may determine whether Plaintiff has satisfied the
`
`extrinsic test, “once th[at] objective threshold is
`
`met, it is the role of the jury to make a nuanced
`
`subjective determination under the intrinsic test.”
`
`Id. at 987. Thus, the Court proceeds to apply the
`
`extrinsic test.
`
`i.
`
`Identifying Protectable Elements
`
`The first step in applying the extrinsic test is to
`
`“distinguish protectible from unprotectible elements
`
`[of a work] and ask only whether the protectible
`
`elements in two works are substantially similar.” L.A.
`
`Printex Industries, Inc., 676 F.3d at 850. While the
`
`idea of a floral design or the natural appearance of
`
`the flowers themselves is not protectable, Plaintiff’s
`
`“[o]riginal selection, coordination, and arrangement”
`
`of the flowers in the Subject Design is protectable
`
`expression. Id. “After all, there are gazillions of
`
`ways to combine petals, buds, stems, leaves, and colors
`
`in floral designs on fabric.” Malibu Textiles., Inc.,
`
`922 F.3d at 953.
`
`///
`
`10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:902
`
`ii. Comparing Similarities
`
`Next, the Court compares the protectable elements
`
`of the Subject Design to the Accused Designs “to assess
`
`similarities in the objective details of the works.”
`
`Id. (quotations omitted). “In comparing fabric
`
`designs, we examine the similarities in their objective
`
`details in appearance, including, but not limited to,
`
`the subject matter, shapes, colors, materials, and
`
`arrangement of the representations.” Id.
`
`1.
`
`Version 1
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`///
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:903
`
`Plaintiff identifies five “elements” of
`
`similarities between the flowers in the Subject Design
`
`and the Accused Design Version 1. Defendants dispute
`
`that the Court should consider these elements, arguing
`
`that only the Subject Design as a whole is entitled to
`
`copyright protection. While the protectable aspect of
`
`the Subject Design is the selection, coordination, and
`
`arrangement of the floral pattern, as opposed to the
`
`individual flowers themselves, the unique expressions
`
`in each flower are nonetheless relevant since they
`
`contribute to the Subject Design as a whole. For this
`
`reason, courts within the Ninth Circuit have compared
`
`both individual flowers and the works as a whole in
`
`determining substantial similarity. See, e.g., Desire,
`
`LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., No. CV 16-4295-DMG (JEMx),
`
`2017 WL 5635009, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18,
`
`2017)(“Before analyzing the Subject and Accused Designs
`
`as a whole—i.e., considering the floral design and
`
`pattern as a textile print, as opposed to the
`
`individual flowers alone—the Court evaluates the
`
`flowers individually under the extrinsic test.”).
`
`Thus, the Court first compares the similarities amongst
`
`the five elements identified by Plaintiff, and then
`
`analyzes the works as a whole.
`
`Element 1 highlights the largest red flower in each
`
`design. As depicted below, both the Subject Design and
`
`Accused Design contain the same three layers of petals,
`
`with each petal layer blooming outward at the same
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:904
`
`degree. Moreover, the shape and shading is nearly
`
`identical in each of the flower’s petal layers. While
`
`the colors of shading are darker in the Accused Design,
`
`“a rational jury could find that these difference
`
`result from the fabric-printing process generally and
`
`are inconsequential.” L.A. Printex Industries, Inc.,
`
`676 F.3d at 851 (quotations omitted).
`
`
`Element 2, depicted below, refers to a mid-sized
`
`red flower in each design, which is shaped and shaded
`
`nearly identically. Additionally, both designs depict
`
`a small petal jutting toward the left at the bottom of
`
`the rosebud.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:905
`
`Element 3, depicted below, reveals a mid-sized red
`
`flower with nearly identical shape and shading.
`
`Moreover, each flower contains a more pronounced green
`
`ovule. The ovule is shaded similarly in both designs,
`
`with the area closest to the rosebuds shaded in one
`
`color and the lower area of the ovule shaded in a
`
`contrasting color. Next to the ovule in both designs,
`
`a leaf protrudes out to the right and curves down.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:906
`
`Element 4, depicted below, reflects a three-petal
`
`flower with three curved slopes along the outer petals,
`
`and steeper slopes along the central petal, blooming
`
`outward from an asymmetrical ovule jutting toward the
`
`left. The shading in each flower, and in the ovule
`
`connected to the flower, is nearly the same.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`15
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:907
`
`Element 5, depicted below, reflects a large, more
`
`cylindrical red flower that is shaded almost
`
`identically in both designs. The shape of the flowers
`
`is also nearly identical, with the leftmost petal
`
`jutting outward to the left and appearing taller than
`
`the rest of the flower, the rightmost petal sloping
`
`downward, and the swirl of the rose appearing the same
`
`in both.
`
`In addition to these individual similarities, a
`
`jury could find that the floral patterns as a whole are
`
`substantially similar based on the following: both
`
`depict small bouquets of red flowers resembling roses,
`
`both contain the same varying sizes and shapes of the
`
`roses, both have green leaves with short stems
`
`connecting the roses to the leaves and each other, and
`
`both contain a similar ratio between the flowers and
`
`negative space. See, e.g., Star Fabrics, Inc. v.
`
`Closet Signature Fashion Valley Mall, No. LA CV 17-
`
`16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:908
`
`09260-JAK-FFM, 2018 WL 6265095, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 4,
`
`2018)(finding substantial similarity based on the shape
`
`and texture of the flowers and the clustering of
`
`certain types of flowers, color of the flower petals
`
`and their leaves, size of the flowers and leaves, and
`
`ratio between the flowers and negative space).
`
`Defendants dispute these similarities and focus on
`
`four alleged differences between the designs: (1) in
`
`the Subject Design most of the big red flowers have
`
`smaller yellow flowers of a different kind than the red
`
`flowers, whereas in the Accused Designs, the big
`
`flowers are not accompanied by smaller flowers of a
`
`different kind; (2) in the Subject Design, all of the
`
`big red flowers have large green leaves, whereas in the
`
`Accused Designs a majority of the big red flowers have
`
`a vine with small flowers winding away from the big
`
`flowers and some of the big flowers have no small
`
`flowers at all; (3) the Subject Design has flowers
`
`close together, whereas the Accused Designs are spread
`
`out more such that there are empty spaces without
`
`flowers; and (4) the Subject Design has a different big
`
`red flower than the Accused Designs. Mot. at 6:7-21.
`
`However, of the four listed differences, the second and
`
`third differences only pertain to Version 2 of the
`
`Accused Design. Further, the Court disagrees with
`
`Defendants as to the fourth difference in light of the
`
`similarities between the large red flowers discussed
`
`above. The Court agrees with Defendants that the first
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:909
`
`difference is the most distinguishable feature of the
`
`Subject Design, and indeed, the difference may
`
`ultimately lead a jury to conclude that the two works
`
`are not substantially similar. However, at this
`
`juncture and “in light of the similarities described
`
`above, the differences support the . . . conclusion[]
`
`that there is a genuine dispute of material fact on
`
`substantial similarity.” See L.A. Printex Industries,
`
`Inc., 676 F.3d at 851.
`
`In sum, the Court finds that a triable issue of
`
`fact exists as to whether there is substantial
`
`similarity between the Subject Design and Version 1 of
`
`the Accused Design.
`
`2.
`
`Version 2
`
`For many of the same reasons as stated with respect
`
`to Version 1 of the Accused Design, a reasonable juror
`
`could also find that Version 2 of the Accused Design is
`
`18
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:910
`
`substantially similar to the Subject Design.
`
`Specifically, Version 2 contains four of the five
`
`“elements” of similarities that Version 1 had. Those
`
`four elements, depicted below, relate to the
`
`similarities between the largest red flowers in each
`
`design; the mid-sized red flowers with a small petal
`
`jutting toward the left at the bottom of the rosebud;
`
`the three-petal flower with three curved slopes along
`
`the outer petals and steeper slopes along the central
`
`petal, blooming outward from an asymmetrical ovule
`
`jutting toward the left; and the large, more
`
`cylindrical red flower that is shaded almost
`
`identically in both designs with the leftmost petal
`
`more prominent than the other petals and sloping to the
`
`left.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:911
`
`
`
`When viewed as a whole, the Subject Design and
`
`Accused Design Version 2 also contain similarities.
`
`Specifically, both designs depict small bouquets
`
`consisting of the same red flowers that resemble roses,
`
`both contain the same varying sizes and shapes of the
`
`roses, and both contain negative space between each
`
`bouquet. See Desire, LLC, 2017 WL 5635009, at *11
`
`(finding that where the same types of flowers were
`
`portrayed in both designs and the sizes of flowers in
`
`each design were consistent, there existed a triable
`
`issue of fact as to substantial similarity of the
`
`designs as a whole).
`
`Despite these similarities, the Court also
`
`20
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:912
`
`recognizes that there are significant differences
`
`between the two works. First, the big red flowers in
`
`Version 2 of the Accused Design are not accompanied by
`
`yellow flowers or flowers of a different kind.
`
`Instead, the big red flowers are either accompanied by
`
`one other medium red flower of the same type as the
`
`large red flower, or are isolated and unaccompanied by
`
`any other flowers or leaves. Second, Version 2 of the
`
`Accused Design does not contain any green leaves or
`
`stems. Third, the flowers and bouquets in Version 2 of
`
`the Accused Design are more spread out than the
`
`bouquets depicted in the Subject Design, as the flowers
`
`are either isolated or connected to a dark grey vine
`
`with small flowers winding away from the big flowers.
`
`Fourth, the color scheme of the two designs is
`
`different. Nonetheless, as stated with respect to the
`
`differences found between the Subject Design and
`
`Version 1 of the Accused Design, these differences only
`
`further support the conclusion that a triable issue of
`
`fact exists. See L.A. Printex, 676 F.3d at 851 (“It is
`
`entirely immaterial that, in many respects, plaintiff’s
`
`and defendant’s works are dissimilar, if in other
`
`respects, similarity as to a substantial element of
`
`plaintiff’s work can be shown.”).
`
`In conclusion, Defendants bear a heavy burden to
`
`establish that there is no triable issue of fact as to
`
`substantial similarity. See Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc.,
`
`883 F.3d 1111, 1127 (9th Cir. 2018)(“[Substantial
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-06543-RSWL-AGR Document 72 Filed 08/20/19 Page 22 of 22 Page ID #:913
`
`similarity] is an inherently factual question which is
`
`often reserved for the jury[.]”). Because a comparison
`
`of the Subject Design and the Accused Designs reveals
`
`several objective similarities and differences, the
`
`Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the works
`
`are not substantially similar. Thus, the Court DENIES
`
`Defendants’ Motion.4
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED: August 20, 2019 s/ RONALD S.W. LEW
` HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
` Senior U.S. District Judge
`
`4 Plaintiff devotes much of its Opposition to arguing that
`the works are strikingly similar. However, Defendants only
`brought the Motion on the basis that the works lack substantial
`similarity. Because the Court finds a triable issue of fact as
`to substantial similarity, Defendants’ Motion is denied and the
`Court need not decide whether the designs’ similarities rise to
`the level of striking similarity.
`22
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`