Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L. P.

Background

Unicolors, a fabric-design company, sued H&M, a clothing retailer, for copyright infringement after a jury found for Unicolors. Unicolors had filed one registration covering 31 designs. H&M argued the registration was inaccurate because a Copyright Office rule allows one application only for works published as the same “unit of publication,” and some designs were initially sold exclusively to certain customers. The trial court applied the statute’s safe harbor and kept the registration valid; the Ninth Circuit disagreed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the safe harbor’s phrase requiring lack of “knowledge that [information] was inaccurate” covers mistakes about the law as well as mistakes about the facts. The Court said “knowledge” means being aware and found nothing in the statute limiting that awareness to factual errors. It noted registration questions often require legal judgments, cited prior cases and congressional history showing Congress intended to protect nonlawyers, and concluded that legal ignorance can excuse an inaccurate registration. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The ruling affects creators and small businesses who register works without legal training: registrations may remain valid even if applicants misapplied a legal rule on the form. At the same time, courts may still find actual awareness from circumstantial evidence or willful blindness, so defendants can challenge registrations when evidence suggests intentional or reckless misstatements. This decision interprets the statute’s safe harbor but does not itself decide final infringement merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Alito and partly by Gorsuch, arguing the Court should have dismissed review because Unicolors changed the question presented and raised novel issues about actual versus constructive knowledge.