BA 644

Case 14-6 Copyright Infringement

Dr. Speronis
3/25/2015
Annie Ashton
United Fabrics Intern., Inc. v. C&J WEAR, INC.,
630 F.3d 1255 (2011)
Facts:
United Fabrics International, Inc. bought a fabric design from an Italian
designer. After making the purchase, United modified the design and
registered with the U.S. Patent Office a collection called Ethnic Collection X,
which the modified design is a part of. Macys, Inc. began to sell garments
with a design similar to that in Uniteds Ethnic Collection X, then United filed
a copyright infringement suit against Macys. Macys argued that United did
not hold a valid copyright to the design, therefore could not claim
infringement.
Issue:
The issue in this case is copyright infringement, whether Macys is
guilty of that infringement, or if United failed to hold a valid copyright on the
design in question.
Rule of Law:
In the case of copyright infringement, whenever the form or
expression of an idea is copied, an infringement of copyright has occurred
(Cross & Miller, 2015). This argument involves a registered collection of
design (Legal Language Services, 2015) and the following conditions need to
be considered: (1) The elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly

form; (2) The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection
as a whole; (3) The copyright claimant in all the elements and in the
collection as a whole is the same; and (4) All the elements are by the same
author, or, if they are by different authors, at least one of the authors has
contributed copyrightable authorship to each element. An unpublished
collection is not indexed under the individual titles of the contents but under
the title of the collection.
Application:
Macys argues that United did not hold a valid copyright on the design
of the fabric, therefore they do cannot sue for copyright infringement. As
stated in the appeal, a copyright registration is prima facie evidence of the
validity of the copyright and the facts stated in the certificate. Macy's
therefore has the burden of rebutting the facts set forth in the copyright
certificate. In both district court and appeals, Macys failed to prove that
United did not have a valid transfer of ownership of the design, therefore
there was no valid copyright. Macys also failed to understand who had the
burden of providing evidence of invalidity. In fact, United does have a valid
copyright. Under copyright of a collection, Uniteds Ethnic Collection X is a
copyrighted collected set forth in section 202.3(b)(4).
Conclusion:
The appeals court reversed the district courts decision dismissing the suit
against Macys. In was concluded that United had a valid copyright of
collection.

Opinion
This is a case where I believe a copyright of a fabric pattern is a stretch of
the law. It is understandable to protect the rights of written works, artists,
inventors, and company logos, but fabric patterns are so similar to one
another, this type of suit could be brought against any designer who hasnt
copyrighted the fabric being used in their collections. This should be a grayarea, or an exception to the rule.

Works Cited
Cross, F. B., & Miller, R. L. (2015). The Legal Environment of Business.
Legal Language Services. (2015). Retrieved from www.legallanguage.com:
http://www.legallanguage.com/resources/copyright/registrationprocedures/