## Facts

- A bridal-gown designer/manufacturer created five original lace fabric designs used on its wedding gowns and obtained federal copyright registrations for those designs.
- A competing bridal-gown company and its president marketed and sold gowns alleged to incorporate lace substantially similar to the five registered designs.
- The designer sued asserting (1) copyright infringement as to the five lace designs, (2) Lanham Act § 43(a) false designation/false advertising, (3) New York common-law unfair competition, and (4) federal and state dilution.
- The designer moved for a preliminary injunction to stop defendants from using its marks, passing off, and manufacturing or selling dresses substantially similar to its products, including dresses using the five copyrighted lace designs.
- Defendants opposed, including on the ground that plaintiffs delayed seeking injunctive relief, undermining any showing of irreparable harm.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed entitlement to a preliminary injunction on the copyright claims by demonstrating likely success on the merits and irreparable harm.
2. Whether plaintiffs showed entitlement to preliminary relief under Lanham Act § 43(a), unfair competition, and dilution theories.
3. What effect plaintiffs’ delay in seeking preliminary relief should have on irreparable harm and the scope of any injunction.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court found plaintiffs made a sufficient showing of likely success that defendants copied protectable elements of the five copyrighted lace designs through substantial similarity.
- The court accepted irreparable harm for the copyright claims based on plaintiffs’ likelihood of success and the risk of market and goodwill injury in a fashion-driven market.
- The court treated plaintiffs’ delay as a factor in equity, not an automatic bar, and used it to limit the breadth of relief.
- The court declined to issue broad preliminary relief grounded primarily in Lanham Act, unfair competition, and dilution theories, citing an insufficient record and overbreadth concerns.
- The court tailored the injunction to prohibit manufacture and sale of dresses embodying the five specified lace designs (or substantially similar copies), rather than banning generally similar bridal gowns.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires a showing of irreparable harm and either (a) likelihood of success on the merits or (b) serious questions on the merits plus a balance of hardships favoring the movant; the remedy is extraordinary and requires a clear showing.
- Copyright infringement requires ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original constituent elements; copying may be shown circumstantially through access and substantial similarity of protectable expression.
- Fabric and lace designs may be protectable where originality lies in the selection, coordination, and arrangement of elements, even if individual motifs are common.
- In assessing substantial similarity in design cases, courts focus on concrete expressive choices (motifs, spacing, configuration), not generalized themes (e.g., “floral lace”).
- In evaluating equitable relief, delay is assessed case-by-case; it can weaken claims of urgency and narrow relief but does not necessarily bar an injunction.
- Injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn to prevent the proven or likely infringement and should not extend beyond what is necessary on the current record.

## Conclusion

The court issued a limited preliminary injunction directed at the alleged copying of five copyrighted lace designs, finding a strong showing of substantial similarity and irreparable harm, while refusing broader trademark, trade-dress, and dilution-based restraints because the evidentiary showing and equitable considerations warranted a narrower order.


Eve of Milady v. Impression Bridal, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 484 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)