Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L. P.
The Supreme Court ruled that copyright holders who make innocent mistakes on their registration forms — whether because they misunderstood the law or just the facts — can still enforce their copyrights, as long as they genuinely didn't know the information was wrong.
The decision shields creators and non-lawyers from having their registrations invalidated by accused infringers who exploit minor legal technicalities in the registration process.
“§411(b) does not distinguish between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact. Lack of knowledge of either fact or law can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration.”
The Court's core holding that honest legal ignorance, not just factual ignorance, can protect a copyright registration from invalidation.
How it got here: A jury sided with Unicolors; H&M sought to set aside the verdict; the district court denied that motion; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding legal ignorance couldn't excuse the error; the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Unicolors, a fabric design company, sued clothing retailer H&M for copying its designs. Unicolors had registered 31 fabric designs under a single copyright application. H&M argued the registration was invalid because some designs had been offered exclusively to select customers while others were available to the public — violating a Copyright Office rule requiring that a single registration cover works published as a single unit. Unicolors said it simply didn't know that rule applied to its situation.
The question before the Court
If a company made an honest mistake on a copyright registration form because it misunderstood an obscure legal rule — not the underlying facts — can that ignorance still protect the registration from being thrown out?
The Court's answer
Yes — a copyright holder whose registration contains an inaccuracy can still enforce that copyright if the error resulted from an honest misunderstanding of the law, not just the facts. The Copyright Act's safe harbor says a registration stays valid unless the applicant included inaccurate information "with knowledge that it was inaccurate." The Court ruled that "knowledge" means actual awareness of the inaccuracy — and a person cannot be aware of an inaccuracy they do not realize exists, whether that gap involves a fact or a legal requirement.
The Court rejected the argument that the old legal maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies here, noting that maxim belongs in criminal cases, not civil safe-harbor provisions. Courts retain tools to catch bad actors: willful blindness can count as actual knowledge, and circumstantial evidence — such as how significant the legal error was, or how experienced the applicant was with copyright law — can show an applicant really did know what they were doing. But mere unawareness of a technical legal rule is enough to avoid invalidation.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Artists, designers, writers, and other creators who file copyright registrations without a lawyer are now protected from having their registrations thrown out over an honest legal misunderstanding — not just a factual one. Companies accused of infringement can no longer exploit minor technical legal errors in registration forms to escape liability, as long as the copyright holder didn't knowingly misstate the information.
What changes now
The case goes back to lower courts for further proceedings. On remand, courts must apply the standard that only actual knowledge of an inaccuracy — whether legal or factual — can invalidate a registration. The question of whether Unicolors genuinely lacked that knowledge, or was "willfully blind" to the problem, remains open. If Unicolors prevails on remand, the jury verdict in its favor against H&M could be reinstated.
What this does not decide
The ruling does not decide whether Unicolors itself actually lacked knowledge of its registration's inaccuracy — that question is left for lower courts on remand. It also does not resolve what specific evidence is sufficient to prove or disprove actual knowledge of a legal requirement in any particular copyright case.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas would have dismissed the case without deciding the merits, arguing that Unicolors switched its legal argument midway — from claiming the Copyright Act requires fraudulent intent to claiming it requires only actual knowledge — raising novel questions no other court had ever addressed. In a section joined only by Justice Alito (Justice Gorsuch joined all other parts), Thomas also argued that the majority's 'actual knowledge of law' standard is virtually unprecedented in civil law and that 'knowledge' more typically encompasses constructive knowledge as well.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court started with the text of the Copyright Act's safe harbor (§411(b)(1)(A)), which says a registration stays valid even if it contains inaccurate information, unless the applicant included that information 'with knowledge that it was inaccurate.' The Court applied the ordinary meaning of 'knowledge' — being aware of something — as confirmed by dictionaries and prior case law.
- Because registration applications require applicants to make legal judgments (such as whether a work was made 'for hire' or qualifies as a 'compilation'), inaccuracies are just as likely to arise from a legal misunderstanding as from a factual one. The text gives no reason to treat legal mistakes more harshly than factual ones, especially since many applicants — novelists, painters, designers — have no legal training.
- The Court looked at other safe-harbor provisions in the Copyright Act that use stronger language like 'reasonable grounds to know' or 'deliberate ignorance,' and concluded that Congress knows how to impose a higher knowledge standard when it wants to. The absence of such language in §411(b)(1)(A) signals Congress meant actual, subjective awareness — no more.
- Pre-§411(b) case law overwhelmingly held that inadvertent mistakes on registrations — including legal errors — did not invalidate copyright registrations or bar infringement suits. The Court found no indication that Congress intended to discard that well-established rule when it enacted §411(b).
- Legislative history reinforced this reading: Congress passed §411(b) to help nonlawyers protect their copyrights and to close loopholes that infringers were using to escape liability by pointing to minor registration errors. Letting legal ignorance serve as a basis for invalidation would reopen exactly those loopholes.
- To prevent abuse of the actual-knowledge standard, the Court noted that willful blindness can constitute actual knowledge, and circumstantial evidence — such as the significance of the legal error or the applicant's experience with copyright law — can show that a copyright holder really was aware of the inaccuracy.