ITC Textile, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

ITC Textile, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

606 F. App'x 356

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 2015

Docket13-55361, 13-55706

StatusUnpublished

This text of 606 F. App'x 356 (ITC Textile, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ITC Textile, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 606 F. App'x 356 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant ITC Textile, Ltd. brings a consolidated appeal from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Avalon Apparel Group, LLC, Disorderly Kids, LLC, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and from the district court’s dismissal of ITC’s suit against Avalon Apparel, Disorderly Kids, and Ross Stores, Inc. We have jurisdiction over both cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.

The district court held that, although ITC’s copyright registrations for the two designs at issue in these cases — the Symphony Sweet design and the Medallion Art design — were prima facie evidence of validity, Appellees had rebutted the presumption of validity by showing that the designs were unoriginal and that ITC’s copyrights were therefore invalid as a matter of law. But the declaration submitted by Appellees to rebut the presumption of validity did not actually show that the designs were unoriginal in the relevant *357 sense, because it presented no evidence that the compilation of elements in either the Symphony Sweet or Medallion Art design lacked originality. See L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841, 850 (9th Cir.2012); United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C & J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir.2011). Because the declaration did not rebut the presumption of validity, ITC was not required to produce further evidence of originality (beyond its copyright registrations) to defeat summary judgment. See United Fabrics, 630 F.3d. at 1258 (holding, in a case reversing sua sponte dismissal at summary judgment stage, that the plaintiff did not have to produce any evidence, because, as the copyright claimant, the plaintiff was presumed to own a valid copyright).

Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees in case number 13-55361, and REVERSE the district court’s order granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss in case number 13-55706. We also VACATE the district court’s order denying ITC additional time for discovery so the district court may, if it finds doing so to be appropriate, reconsider that order in light of this ruling.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant ITC Textile, Ltd. brings a consolidated appeal from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Avalon Apparel Group, LLC, Disorderly Kids, LLC, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and from the district court’s dismissal of ITC’s suit against Avalon Apparel, Disorderly Kids, and Ross Stores, Inc. We have jurisdiction over both cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.

The district court held that, although ITC’s copyright registrations for the two designs at issue in these cases — the Symphony Sweet design and the Medallion Art design — were prima facie evidence of validity, Appellees had rebutted the presumption of validity by showing that the designs were unoriginal and that ITC’s copyrights were therefore invalid as a matter of law. But the declaration submitted by Appellees to rebut the presumption of validity did not actually show that the designs were unoriginal in the relevant *357 sense, because it presented no evidence that the compilation of elements in either the Symphony Sweet or Medallion Art design lacked originality. See L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841, 850 (9th Cir.2012); United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C & J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir.2011). Because the declaration did not rebut the presumption of validity, ITC was not required to produce further evidence of originality (beyond its copyright registrations) to defeat summary judgment. See United Fabrics, 630 F.3d. at 1258 (holding, in a case reversing sua sponte dismissal at summary judgment stage, that the plaintiff did not have to produce any evidence, because, as the copyright claimant, the plaintiff was presumed to own a valid copyright).

Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees in case number 13-55361, and REVERSE the district court’s order granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss in case number 13-55706. We also VACATE the district court’s order denying ITC additional time for discovery so the district court may, if it finds doing so to be appropriate, reconsider that order in light of this ruling.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 F. App'x 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/itc-textile-ltd-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack