`
`
`
`No. 20-915
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`___________________
`UNICOLORS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P.,
`
`
`Respondent.
`____________________________________
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
`THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`___________________________________
`BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
`___________________________________
`
`Scott Alan Burroughs
`Stephen M. Doniger
`Trevor W. Barrett
`DONIGER/BURROUGHS PC
`603 Rose Avenue
`Venice, CA 90291
`Thomas M. Bondy
`Lauren A. Weber
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`E. Joshua Rosenkranz
`Counsel of Record
`Christopher J. Cariello
`Jennifer Keighley
`Joseph R. Kolker
`Katherine Kerrick
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 506-5000
`jrosenkranz@orrick.com
`
`

`

`i
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act requires a cop-
`yright holder to apply for and obtain a copyright reg-
`istration before initiating an infringement lawsuit.
`Such applications often contain inaccuracies. But
`§ 411(b)(1) provides that “inaccurate information” is
`not a basis for challenging a registration’s validity un-
`less the inaccuracy “was included … with knowledge
`that it was inaccurate” and “would have caused the
`Register of Copyrights to refuse registration.”
`that
`The question presented
`is whether
`“knowledge” element precludes a challenge to a regis-
`tration where the inaccuracy resulted from the appli-
`cant’s good-faith misunderstanding of a principle of
`copyright law?
`
`
`

`

`ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................ i 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... iv 
`OPINIONS BELOW .................................................. 1 
`JURISDICTION ........................................................ 1 
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ............... 1 
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 2 
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................. 5 
`Congress Abolishes Mandatory
`Registration While Relaxing
`Copyright Formalities ................................. 5 
`Unicolors Designs And Registers A
`Collection Of Fabric Artwork And
`H&M Willfully Infringes ............................. 9 
`H&M Challenges Unicolors’ Copyright
`Registration ................................................ 13 
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................ 18 
`ARGUMENT ........................................................... 22 
`Under § 411(b), An Applicant Who Makes An
`Innocent Mistake Of Law Does Not Have
`“Knowledge” That The “Information” Is
`“Inaccurate.” ............................................................ 22 
`
`

`

`iii
`
`
`
`A.  The text of § 411(b)(1)(A) requires
`subjective awareness of the
`inaccuracy, which is not satisfied
`when the applicant makes an innocent
`mistake. ...................................................... 24 
`B.  Section 411(b) codified the common-
`law rule that a good-faith mistake—
`including a mistake of law—cannot be
`a basis for challenging a copyright
`registration. ................................................ 31 
`C.  When a statute requires “knowledge”
`of a circumstance with factual and
`legal components, a mistake of law is
`a defense. .................................................... 40 
`D.  Congress could not have intended a
`rule that would so severely override
`copyright holders’ rights and remedies
`and disrupt infringement litigation. ......... 44 
`CONCLUSION ........................................................ 53 
`ADDENDUM
`
`
`

`

`
`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advisers, Inc. v. Wiesen-Hart, Inc.,
`238 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1956) .................... 32, 34, 35
`Archie MD, Inc. v. Elsevier, Inc.,
`261 F. Supp. 3d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) .................. 45
`Billy-Bob Teeth, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc.,
`329 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2003) .......................... 34, 35
`Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens, Inc.,
`241 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2001) .......................... 33, 36
`Bruhn NewTech, Inc. v. United States,
`144 Fed. Cl. 755 (2019) ........................................ 48
`Bryan v. United States,
`524 U.S. 184 (1998) ........................................ 41, 43
`Budget Cinema, Inc. v. Watertower Assocs.,
`81 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 1996) .................................. 49
`Christensen v. Harris County,
`529 U.S. 576 (2000) .............................................. 31
`
`Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys.
`Support Corp.,
`36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994) ................................ 33
`Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury,
`489 U.S. 803 (1989) .................................. 20, 31, 37
`
`

`

`v
`
`DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v.
`Schaltenbrand,
`734 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2013) .......................... 37, 50
`
`Donald Frederick Evans & Assocs., Inc.
`v. Cont’l Homes, Inc.,
`785 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1986) .............................. 33
`Duncan v. Blackbird Prods. Grp., LLC,
`No. 17-03404-CV-S-BP (W.D. Mo.
`Apr. 15, 2021) ....................................................... 47
`Eckes v. Card Prices Update,
`736 F.2d 859 (2d Cir. 1984) ..................... 33, 36, 37
`Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) .............................................. 52
`Fischer v. Forrest,
`968 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 2020) ................................. 49
`
`Fourth Est. Pub. Ben. Corp. v. Wall-
`Street.com, LLC,
`139 S. Ct. 881 (2019) ........................................ 7, 51
`Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) .............................................. 26
`Golan v. Holder,
`565 U.S. 302 (2012) .............................................. 39
`
`Gold Value Int’l Textile, Inc. v.
`Sanctuary Clothing, LLC,
`925 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2019) .................. 41, 48, 50
`
`

`

`vi
`
`Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics
`Corp.,
`571 U.S. 161 (2014) .............................................. 26
`Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson,
`343 U.S. 779 (1952) .............................................. 38
`Joe Mittenthal, Inc. v. Irving Berlin, Inc.,
`291 F. 714 (S.D.N.Y. 1923) .................................. 32
`Kay Berry, Inc. v. Taylor Gifts, Inc.,
`421 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2005) ................................. 15
`
`Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v.
`Hollister, Inc.,
`863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................. 39
`Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
`568 U.S. 519 (2013) .................................. 20, 37, 48
`
`Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting
`Fixture Co.,
`345 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................ 32, 36
`Liparota v. United States,
`471 U.S. 419 (1985) ........................................ 42, 43
`
`Masquerade Novelty, Inc. v. Unique
`Indus., Inc.,
`912 F.2d 663 (3d Cir. 1990) ........................... 33, 37
`Matrix Int’l Textile, Inc. v. Monopoly
`Textile, Inc.,
`No. CV160084, 2017 WL 5654794
`(C.D. Cal. May 12, 2017) ..................................... 47
`
`

`

`vii
`
`McFadden v. United States,
`576 U.S. 186 (2015) .............................................. 42
`McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.,
`486 U.S. 128 (1988) .............................................. 40
`
`Novelty Textile, Inc. v. Windsor
`Fashions, Inc.,
`No. CV12-05602, 2013 WL 12114062
`(C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) ..................................... 47
`
`Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v.
`Toy Loft, Inc.,
`684 F.2d 821 (11th Cir. 1982) .................. 32, 33, 36
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 663 (2014) .............................................. 48
`Raquel v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp.,
`196 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 1999) ................................. 33
`Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick,
`559 U.S. 154 (2010) .......................................... 7, 33
`Rehaif v. United States,
`139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) .......................................... 41
`Roberts v. Gordy,
`877 F.3d 1024 (11th Cir. 2017) ................ 30, 37, 45
`Robi v. Five Platters, Inc.,
`918 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................. 39
`Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr,
`551 U.S. 47 (2007) ................................................ 40
`
`

`

`viii
`
`
`Samantar v. Yousuf,
`560 U.S. 305 (2010) .............................................. 38
`
`SellPoolSuppliesOnline.com, LLC v.
`Ugly Pools Arizona, Inc.,
`804 F. App’x 668 (9th Cir. 2020) ......................... 48
`
`Serv. & Training, Inc. v. Data Gen.
`Corp.,
`963 F.2d 680 (4th Cir. 1992) ................................ 36
`
`Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands,
`Inc.,
`137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) .......................................... 24
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................ 39
`
`Thomas Wilson & Co. v. Irving J.
`Dorfman Co.,
`433 F.2d 409 (2d Cir. 1970) ................................. 36
`Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton,
`212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................ 36
`Turner & Dahnken v. Crowley,
`252 F. 749 (9th Cir. 1918) .................................... 33
`Unicolors v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................ 46
`United States v. Backer,
`134 F.2d 533 (2d Cir. 1943) ................................. 32
`United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
`438 U.S. 422 (1978) .............................................. 25
`
`

`

`ix
`
`Urantia Found. v. Maaherra,
`114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................ 34
`Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson,
`306 U.S. 30 (1939) ................................ 8, 32, 49, 51
`Constitutional Provisions
`U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ........................................ 52
`Treaties, Statutes & Regulations
`7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)(1) ................................................. 43
`15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) .................................................... 39
`Copyright Act
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ......................................... 29, 45, 46
`17 U.S.C. § 110(1) ................................................ 26
`17 U.S.C. § 110(2) ................................................ 26
`17 U.S.C. § 408 ....................................................... 7
`17 U.S.C. § 408(d) .......................................... 49, 52
`17 U.S.C. § 409 ........................................... 7, 19, 27
`17 U.S.C. § 409(1) ................................................ 27
`17 U.S.C. § 409(4) ................................................ 28
`17 U.S.C. § 409(5) ................................................ 28
`17 U.S.C. § 409(6) ................................................ 28
`
`

`

`x
`
`x
`
`17 U.S.C. § 409(9) ................................................ 28
`17 U.S.C. § 409(9) oo... eee eseeseeesseeesseeesneeenaeeenee 28
`17 U.S.C. § 409(10) .............................................. 28
`17 U.S.C. § 409010)oe eee eesesseeeseeesneeeneeeeees 28
`17 U.S.C. § 410 ....................................................... 7
`17 U.S.C. § 410... eee eeseeeeneeeeseeeeeeesaeeenaeeeeaeee 7
`17 U.S.C. § 411 ................................................. 7, 50
`17 U.S.C. § ALL eee eeeeeeeseeeeneeeeeeeeeeeeenaeee 7, 50
`17 U.S.C. § 411(a) ............................................ 7, 50
`17 U.S.C. § 41108)woot eset eeeeseeeeeeeeeseeeneeee 7, 50
`17 U.S.C. § 411(b) ........................................ passim
`17 U.S.C. § 4110D) oo. ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees passim
`17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1) .................................... 8, 9, 24
`17 U.S.C. § 4110D)(1) ooo eee eects eeeee renee eens 8, 9, 24
`17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1)(A) ............................... passim
`17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1)(A)........ eee eeeeee eee eeeeeeees passim
`17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(2) .................................. 9, 18, 51
`17 U.S.C. § 4110D) (2)... eee cess eenee eset eee 9, 18, 51
`17 U.S.C. § 412 ........................................ 7,8, 24, 49
`17 ULS.C. § 412... eeeeeeeeeeseseeeeeeeeees 7,8, 24, 49
`17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) ............................................ 26
`17 U.S.C. § 504(C)(2) «0... eeeeeeseeesseeeseeeeaeeeneeeeeee 26
`17 U.S.C. § 505 ..................................................... 49
`17 U.S.C. § 505... eee cess eeseeeseeeeeseeesseeesneeenaeeenas 49
`17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(C) ....................................... 26
`17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(L)(C)oo. eee eeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 26
`17 U.S.C. § 506(e) ................................................ 29
`17 U.S.C. § BOG(€) oo... eee eeeeeeneeeseesaeeeeneeenseeeees 29
`17 U.S.C. § 507 ..................................................... 48
`17 U.S.C. § BOT... eee eeseeesseeeseeeeeseeesaeeesaeeenaeeenas 48
`17 U.S.C. § 1401(c)(1)(6) ...................................... 26
`17 U.S.C. § 1401(C)(1)(6).... eee cess eeseeeeneeeeeeeeeee 26
`18 U.S.C. § 922(g) ...................................................... 41
`18 U.S.C. § 922(g).... eee eeseeesseeeneeesseeesseeesaeeesaeeeeas Al
`18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) ................................................. 41
`18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) 00. eee eeeeeeeeeeneeeesneeeenneeeesens 41
`
`

`

`xi
`
`Berne Convention for the Protection of
`Literary and Artistic Works, Sept. 9,
`1886, as last revised, Paris, July 24,
`1971, Art. 5(2), 1161 U.N.T.S. 3, S.
`Treaty Doc. No. 99-273 ........................................ 39
`Berne Convention Implementation Act
`of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102
`Stat. 2853 ............................................................. 38
`Copyright Act of 1790, Pub. L. No. 1-15,
`1 Stat. 124 .............................................................. 6
`Copyright Act of 1909, Pub. L. No. 60-
`349, 35 Stat. 1075 .................................. 7, 8, 32, 44
`PRO-IP Act, Pub. L. No. 110-403 (2008) .................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 202.3(4) ................................................... 15
`37 C.F.R. § 202.3(b)(4) .............................................. 47
`Other Authorities
`Howard B. Abrams & Tyler T. Ochoa,
`Law of Copyright (2020 ed.) ................................ 34
`Annual Report of the Register of Copy-
`rights, Fiscal Year Ending Septem-
`ber 30, 2008 (2008),
`https://tinyurl.com/d2x94cr5 ........................... 9, 37
`Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ............. 25, 26
`
`

`

`xii
`
`Jane C. Ginsburg, The U.S. Experience
`with Mandatory Copyright
`Formalities: A Love/Hate
`Relationship, 33 Colum. J.L. & Arts
`311 (2010) ............................................................... 6
`Paul Goldstein, Goldstein on Copyright
`(2021) .................................................................... 36
`H. Comm. on Judiciary, 87th Cong., 1st
`Sess., Rep. of the Register of Copy-
`rights on the General Revision of the
`U.S. Copyright Law (Comm. Print
`1961), https://tinyurl.com/mkwuc7sw ................... 6
`H.R. Rep. No. 60-2222 (1909) ............................... 6, 45
`H.R. Rep. No. 110-617 (2008) ................... 9, 38, 45, 52
`Benjamin Kaplan, S. Comm. on the
`Judiciary, Subcomm. on Patents,
`Trademarks, & Copyrights, 86th
`Cong., The Registration of
`Copyright, Copyright Office Study
`No. 17 (Comm. Print 1958),
`https://tinyurl.com/46bmx35b ............................... 5
`Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive
`Criminal Law (3d ed. 2020)................................. 41
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary (11th ed. 2006) ................................... 25
`Model Penal Code (Am. L. Inst. 2021) ............... 26, 42
`
`

`

`xiii
`
`Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, 2
`Nimmer on Copyright (2021) ............... 8, 34, 37, 38
`Response of the Register of Copyrights,
`Fashion Ave. Sweater Knits, LLC v.
`Poof Apparel Corp., No. 2:19-cv-
`06302 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2021), Dkt.
`129-1 ..................................................................... 31
`Thorvald Solberg, Library of Congress,
`Report on Copyright Legislation
`(1904) ...................................................................... 6
`Stanford Law School Law and Policy
`Lab Copyright Licensing Practicum,
`Revising the Requirements for
`Software Registration (2017-2018),
`https://tinyurl.com/4dxbx8nb .............................. 46
`U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of
`U.S. Copyright Office Practices (2d
`ed. 1988) ............................................................... 15
`U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of
`U.S. Copyright Office Practices (3d
`ed. 2017) ............................................................... 46
`U.S. Copyright Office, Online
`Publication, 84 Fed. Reg. 66,328-01
`(Dec. 4, 2019) .................................................. 44, 45
`U.S. Copyright Office, Registration
`Modernization, 85 Fed. Reg. 12,704-
`01 (Mar. 3, 2020) .................................................. 46
`
`

`

`xiv
`
`Webster’s Third New International
`Dictionary (2002) ................................................. 27
`
`

`

`
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported at
`959 F.3d 1194 and reprinted at Pet. App. 1a-15a. The
`order of the Court of Appeals denying the petition for
`rehearing en banc is unreported and reprinted at Pet.
`App. 134a-35a. The district court’s unpublished opin-
`ion is available at 2018 WL 10307045 and reprinted
`at J.A. 175-202.
`
`JURISDICTION
`The Ninth Circuit entered judgment on May 29,
`2020 and entered its order denying the petition for re-
`hearing on August 7, 2020. The petition for a writ of
`certiorari was filed on January 4, 2020 and granted
`on June 1, 2021. This Court has jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`Section 411(b) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.
`§ 411(b), provides in pertinent part:
`(1) A certificate of registration satisfies the re-
`quirements of this section and section 412, re-
`gardless of whether the certificate contains
`any inaccurate information, unless—
`(A) the inaccurate information was in-
`cluded on the application for copyright
`registration with knowledge that it was
`inaccurate; and
`
`

`

`2
`
`(B) the inaccuracy of the information, if
`known, would have caused the Register of
`Copyrights to refuse registration.
`(2) In any case in which inaccurate infor-
`mation described under paragraph (1) is al-
`leged, the court shall request the Register of
`Copyrights to advise the court whether the in-
`accurate information, if known, would have
`caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse
`registration.
`Other relevant provisions of the Copyright Act,
`and a regulation promulgated thereunder, are repro-
`duced in the addendum to this brief.
`INTRODUCTION1
`This case is about whether Congress intended to
`depart from a century of precedent and start penaliz-
`ing poets and artists for innocent mistakes in copy-
`right registrations.
`Across the half-a-million registration applications
`that artists and authors submit each year, mistakes
`abound. The registration form may look simple. But
`the reality for many authors, from sophisticated pub-
`lishing houses to TikTok influencers, is that the pro-
`cess is beset by snags. Backroom mix-ups yield typos,
`factual errors, and basic mistakes in, say, the titles of
`works or their dates of creation. And lay applicants
`
`1 The Joint Appendix, Petition Appendix, and Addendum
`are cited as “J.A.,” “Pet. App.,” and “Add.” Unless otherwise spec-
`ified, cites to statutory provisions are to the Copyright Act, codi-
`fied at Title 17 of the U.S. Code.
`
`

`

`3
`
`inject errors for failure to appreciate the nuances of
`statutory terms like “publication,” “derivative work,”
`or “work made for hire”—legal quagmires on which
`entire chapters of treatises are written and rewritten
`as the law evolves. Innocent mistakes in copyright
`registrations are, and always have been, inevitable.
`But innocent mistakes are not a defense to claims
`of copyright infringement. More than a century ago,
`the courts established the “fraud on the Copyright Of-
`fice” doctrine. Although courts expressed the doctrine
`in various ways, they have never wavered from the
`doctrine’s central premise: An accused infringer could
`not defeat an infringement suit on the basis of an in-
`nocent mistake in the copyright registration. That
`was true whether the inaccuracy was attributable to
`the applicant’s misapprehension of facts or law.
`In 2008, Congress codified this doctrine in the Pri-
`oritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual
`Property—or PRO-IP—Act, Pub. L. No. 110-403
`(2008). It created a safe harbor establishing that reg-
`istration authorizes a copyright infringement suit “re-
`gardless of whether the certificate contains any
`inaccurate information, unless … the inaccurate in-
`formation was included … with knowledge that it was
`inaccurate.” § 411(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). At issue
`here is whether that provision means what it says,
`and says what a century’s worth of case law held be-
`fore it: Innocent mistakes are never enough to chal-
`lenge a copyright registration.
`The text of the provision leaves no doubt. The
`plain meaning of the phrase “with knowledge” re-
`quires an applicant to possess awareness that infor-
`
`

`

`4
`
`mation “included” on a copyright application is inac-
`curate. The phrase is untempered by textual modifi-
`ers that would suggest any type of objective or
`constructive knowledge standard. And the law pre-
`sumes that Congress did not abandon the common-
`law fraud-on-the-Copyright-Office doctrine without
`clearly indicating that intention.
`As for the wisdom underlying the rule, leave aside
`history and logic—just look at this case. Unicolors
`sued H&M for a brazen act of infringement. H&M
`willfully copied Unicolors’ copyrighted fabric design
`stitch-for-stitch—as a unanimous jury swiftly found.
`Only after the jury verdict did H&M assert that
`the whole litigation was a waste. It argued that the
`registration for the fabric design at issue also covered
`other fabric designs, and that it was legally improper
`to include some of those designs on the same applica-
`tion. H&M offered no evidence that Unicolors had
`knowledge that it was impermissible to list the de-
`signs together—a practice Unicolors had employed,
`unproblematically, many times before and that was
`consistent with contemporaneous guidance and prec-
`edent. The alleged inaccuracy had nothing to do with
`H&M, its rights, or its notice of ownership. Nor did it
`change the reality that H&M clearly stole Unicolors’
`artwork. But the Ninth Circuit held that as long as
`Unicolors had knowledge of the factual circumstances
`underlying the creation and sale of its designs, it did
`not matter how ardently Unicolors believed that the
`application was legally permissible, or how reasona-
`ble that belief was.
`
`

`

`5
`
`Section 411(b)(1)(A) is not supposed to be a Get
`Out Of Jail Free card. And the PRO-IP Act was not
`about letting willful infringers skate on technicalities.
`Section 411(b)(1)(A)’s equitable defense exists only to
`prevent copyright plaintiffs from profiting by know-
`ingly abusing the copyright system. Turning the de-
`fense into a game of litigation gotcha will scuttle the
`intellectual property rights of countless legitimate
`copyright holders, with no countervailing benefits.
`This Court should adopt the only interpretation of
`§ 411(b)(1)(A) supported by that provision’s text and
`a century of legal tradition. Copyright applicants
`must endeavor to comply with registration require-
`ments in good faith. But innocent mistakes—whether
`characterized as legal or factual—cannot be penalized
`for the benefit of infringers. The Ninth Circuit’s deci-
`sion should be reversed.
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Congress Abolishes Mandatory Registration
`While Relaxing Copyright Formalities
`Historically, the English and American copyright
`systems had subjected copyright protection to numer-
`ous, often hypertechnical, “formalities”—official pre-
`requisites to securing copyright protection. See
`generally Benjamin Kaplan, S. Comm. on the Judici-
`ary, Subcomm. on Patents, Trademarks, & Copy-
`rights, 86th Cong., The Registration of Copyright,
`Copyright Office Study No. 17 (Comm. Print 1958),
`https://tinyurl.com/46bmx35b. Among them was man-
`datory copyright registration, which required authors
`to record their ownership of works in a central regis-
`
`

`

`6
`
`try as a condition of acquiring exclusive rights. Copy-
`right Act of 1790, Pub. L. No. 1-15, § 1, 1 Stat. 124. A
`registry gives the public “the means of determining
`the status and ownership of copyright claims.” H.
`Comm. on Judiciary, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., Rep. of the
`Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the
`U.S. Copyright Law 6 (Comm. Print 1961), https://ti-
`nyurl.com/mkwuc7sw. This, in turn, facilitates pur-
`chase, licensing, and use of copyrighted works,
`ultimately helping artists and the public alike realize
`the value of society’s creative output.
`Under the 1790 Act, courts enforced various reg-
`istration formalities with a vengeance. Minor errors
`on a registration application could invalidate the reg-
`istration and defeat an author’s rights. At the turn of
`the 20th century, the Register of Copyrights lamented
`that “a system has gradually grown up under which
`valuable literary property rights have come to depend
`upon exact compliance with the[] statutory formali-
`ties which have no relation to the equitable rights in-
`volved.” Thorvald Solberg, Library of Congress,
`Report on Copyright Legislation 25 (1904). A few
`years later, a House Report raised alarms that “[t]he
`failure of a shipping clerk … may destroy a copyright
`of great value,” noting that “many copyrights have
`been lost … by some accident or mistake.” H.R. Rep.
`No. 60-2222, at 11 (1909). The “extent and complex-
`ity” of registration formalities “often prov[ed] a trap
`for the unwary.” Jane C. Ginsburg, The U.S. Experi-
`ence with Mandatory Copyright Formalities: A
`Love/Hate Relationship, 33 Colum. J.L. & Arts 311,
`322 (2010).
`
`

`

`7
`
`The Copyright Act of 1909 was a sea change. Con-
`gress eliminated registration as a condition to acquir-
`ing exclusive rights. Pub. L. No. 60-349, § 12, 35 Stat.
`1075, 1078. The modern rule is that “[a]n author gains
`‘exclusive rights’ in her work immediately upon the
`work’s creation.” Fourth Est. Pub. Ben. Corp. v. Wall-
`Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881, 887 (2019). Copyright
`protection does not depend on completing any further
`task or obtaining any further permission.
`Instead, the registration system operates through
`a set of “remedial incentives to encourage copyright
`holders to register their works.” Reed Elsevier, Inc. v.
`Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 158 n.1 (2010); see §§ 408-12.
`Most significantly, § 411(a) provides that “no civil ac-
`tion for infringement … shall be instituted until pre-
`registration or registration of the copyright claim has
`been made.” See generally Fourth Est., 139 S. Ct. 881.
`Beyond being a prerequisite to filing an infringe-
`ment claim, the validity and timing of registration
`have significant consequences for the ensuing law-
`suit. Most notable is the effect on statutory damages
`and attorneys’ fees—two remedies critical to effective
`enforcement of copyrights. Both remedies are gener-
`ally unavailable unless a valid registration was in
`place when the infringer started infringing. § 412.
`Moreover, registration “made before or within five
`years after first publication of the work shall consti-
`tute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copy-
`right and of the facts stated in the [registration]
`certificate,” § 410—a significant evidentiary benefit
`in litigation.
`
`

`

`8
`
`The courts quickly recognized that the 1909 Act
`had effected a “complete revision of the copyright laws
`… intended definitely to grant valuable, enforceable
`rights to authors, publishers, etc. without burden-
`some requirements.” Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pear-
`son, 306 U.S. 30, 36 (1939). They followed Congress’s
`lead and relaxed the other strictures of registration.
`“The courts generally have been most lenient, under
`both the 1909 Act and the current Act, with respect to
`any innocent error contained in an application for a
`registration certificate.” Melville B. Nimmer & David
`Nimmer, 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.20[B][1] (2021).
`Courts reached a universal consensus that “a mis-
`statement or clerical error in the registration applica-
`tion, if unaccompanied by fraud, should neither
`invalidate the copyright nor render the registration
`certificate incapable of supporting an infringement
`action.” Id. This judge-made doctrine came to be
`known as “fraud on the Copyright Office.”
`In 2008, it was Congress’s turn to follow the
`courts’ lead, completing the journey away from an-
`cient strictures by adding a new provision, § 411(b), to
`the Copyright Act. That provision limited the circum-
`stances in which “inaccurate information” can invali-
`date a copyright registration. Section 411(b)(1) is
`structured as a safe harbor for copyright holders. It
`provides that “[a] certificate of registration satisfies
`the requirements of this section and section 412, re-
`gardless of whether the certificate contains any inac-
`curate
`information, unless”
`two
`conjunctive
`requirements are met: (A) the “inaccurate infor-
`mation” on the “certificate” was “included on the ap-
`plication … with knowledge that it was inaccurate”;
`and (B) “the inaccuracy of the information, if known,
`
`

`

`9
`
`would have caused the Register of Copyrights to re-
`fuse registration.” § 411(b)(1).
`Congress also added a new procedural innovation:
`“In any case in which inaccurate information de-
`scribed under paragraph (1) is alleged, the court shall
`request the Register of Copyrights to advise the court
`whether the inaccurate information, if known, would
`have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse reg-
`istration.” § 411(b)(2). In other words, Congress did
`not want a court deciding whether an error would
`have been material to the Copyright Office without
`consulting the source.
`The Copyright Office described what was obvious
`from the text and structure: § 411(b) “codif[ied] the
`doctrine of fraud on the Copyright Office.” Annual Re-
`port of the Register of Copyrights, Fiscal Year Ending
`September 30, 2008, at 13
`(2008), https://ti-
`nyurl.com/d2x94cr5. Congress explained that the goal
`was “[t]o prevent intellectual property thieves” from
`escaping liability by way of “a mistake in the registra-
`tion documents,” such as “checking the wrong box on
`the registration form.” H.R. Rep. No. 110-617, at 24
`(2008).
`
`Unicolors Designs And Registers A Collection Of
`Fabric Artwork And H&M Willfully Infringes
`Unicolors is a Los Angeles-based company that
`designs and manufactures fabrics. It markets its art-
`work to apparel manufacturers for use in clothes. Pet.
`App. 4a. Because its success depends on producing
`trendy and attractive fabrics, Unicolors invests heav-
`
`

`

`10
`
`ily in its design team. J.A. 50-51. And to protect that
`investment, Unicolors relies on the copyright system.
`In December 2010, a Unicolors designer named
`Hannah Lim developed artwork for a fabric design:
`
`
`J.A. 41, 230. Lim envisioned the pattern as a “land-
`scape” from the perspective of someone “look-
`ing … into nature.” J.A. 41. And she “drew each of
`the[] elements by hand.” J.A. 43. Unicolors designated
`the design “EH101.” Pet. App. 5a.
`EH101 was part of a collection of 31 works of art
`that Unicolors launched on January 15, 2011, when it
`
`

`

`11
`
`presented the collection to its sales team and released
`it to its showroom. J.A. 58, 69. In February 2011, Uni-
`colors submitted an application for copyright registra-
`tion for all 31 designs in its January collection. Id.;
`Add. 33a.2 The Copyright Office granted the applica-
`tion and issued a certificate of registration for the col-
`lection. J.A. 227-31.
`H&M is one of the biggest clothing companies in
`the world, with hundreds of retail stores in the United
`States. Pet. App. 6a. In 2015, it began selling a jacket
`and skirt with a design virtually identical to EH101
`(albeit in black and white). Id. The copying was bla-
`tant. H&M, without payment or consent, had plagia-
`rized Unicolors’ copyrighted design “row by row, layer
`by layer,” id., as is evident from this side-by-side over-
`lay of the two designs:
`
`
`2 In challenging the registration, H&M did not make the ap-
`plication form part of the record. But the contents of the applica-
`tion are undisputed. For the Court’s convenience and by the
`parties’ agreement, the application is reproduced in the adden-
`dum to this brief (at 33a-43a). The addendum excerpts the sub-
`mitted form only, but not the deposits of materials.
`
`

`

`12
`
`
`Compare J.A. 232 (H&M jacket) with J.A. 233 (Uni-
`colors fabric).
`infringement.
`for copyright
`Unicolors sued
`H&M’s defense was so tenuous as to beggar belief.
`Heading into trial, H&M claim