直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

Commentary

SCOTUS to Weigh in on Unicolors Dispute with H&M

June 2, 2021

World Intellectual Property Review

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear a copyright dispute between fabric designer Unicolors and retailer H&M regarding whether inaccuracies in a copyright registration can result in invalidation. Unicolors accused H&M of using its design on jackets and skirts. In 2018, the Central District of California ruled in favor of Unicolors and ordered H&M to pay damages and attorneys’ fees for willful copyright infringement. H&M appealed, arguing that Unicolors’ registration for the design was invalid because the registration covered 31 unrelated designs. While U.S. copyright law allows registration of multiple works together, the works must form a “single unit." In 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, finding that a “single unit” should mean a “collection of works in a singular, bundled collection.” The appeals court also ruled that the district court should have sought guidance from the Copyright Office on whether these inaccuracies would have led to a refusal of registration. World Intellectual Property Review interviewed Finnegan partner Margaret Esquenet for her thoughts on the case.

Margaret was not surprised that the Supreme Court agreed to review this case. She noted that the case could have significant ramifications for artists and smaller brands. She said, “Permitting defendants to invalidate registrations on the basis of knowing material misrepresentations that do not rise to the level of fraud would likely have the biggest negative impact on individual artists and small businesses who often file applications without the advice of counsel and may not fully understand the nuances of the application process.”

Read the full article here.

Tags

fraud, Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Copyright

Related Industries

Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials

Textiles

Consumer Goods and Services

Consumer Products

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related News

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Summary Determination of No Violation in ITC Vehicle Space Guards Investigation for Drop Stop

October 6, 2026

Commentary

Catching Up with Hope Shimabuku

September 29, 2026

Commentary

Federal Circuit Revives Whistleblower Complaint Over VA's AI Claims-Processing Tool

September 25, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Named an IP Litigation Powerhouse in BTI Litigation Outlook 2027

September 24, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Receives Top Tier Rankings in World Trademark Review’s Inaugural Copyright 1000 2026

September 23, 2026

Commentary

New Thomas Pink Womenswear Lines Strain ‘Pink’ Pact with Victoria’s Secret

September 21, 2026

Commentary

Pepsi's U.S. Trademark Dispute Could Reshape Brand Choices, Lawsuit Strategy, Lawyers Say

September 17, 2026

Commentary

Jellycat’s ‘Dupe’ Dilemma: Can IP Protect a ‘Cute’ Aesthetic?

September 16, 2026

Commentary

Bloomberg Law Q&A with Finnegan IP Lawyer Christian Hurt

September 11, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP