## Facts

- Folio Impressions, Inc., a New York fabric importer/seller, acquired rights to a textile design (Pattern No. 1365) created by a French design studio and registered the design with the U.S. Copyright Office.
- Pattern 1365 included (1) a stylized rose motif, (2) roses repeated in horizontal rows, and (3) an ornate background.
- Folio printed and sold fabric bearing Pattern 1365 to garment manufacturers.
- After Pattern 1365 entered the market, Byer California obtained a swatch and asked Lida Manufacturing Co., a competitor fabric converter, whether it had a similar pattern.
- Lida stated it did not have a similar design but could create one; it then created its own pattern, “Baroque Rose,” using its reference materials.
- Byer bought fabric printed with “Baroque Rose” from Lida and sold garments made from it to customers, including Macy’s New York, Inc.
- Folio sued for copyright infringement (and related unfair competition), claiming infringement of the rose motif, the row arrangement, and the background.
- The district court found Folio’s rose motif protected but entered judgment for defendants on infringement; Folio appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Folio’s rose motif and overall textile pattern were sufficiently original to support copyright protection.
2. Whether protection extended to the arrangement of roses in rows and to the ornate background, or whether those elements were unprotectable ideas, stock features, or public-domain material.
3. Whether defendants’ “Baroque Rose” pattern was substantially similar to Folio’s protectable expression under the ordinary-observer test as applied to works containing many unprotectable elements.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed judgment for defendants.
- The court held Folio’s registered rose motif was sufficiently original and enjoyed a presumption of validity.
- The court concluded that substantial portions of the layout and background consisted of common, conventional, or public-domain elements not protected by copyright.
- After filtering out unprotectable elements, the court held the remaining protectable expression in Folio’s design was not substantially similar to defendants’ pattern; no infringement was shown.

## Legal Principles

- A copyright registration certificate provides prima facie evidence of validity and ownership under 17 U.S.C. § 410(c), though defendants may rebut the scope of protectable originality.
- Copyright protects original expression, not ideas or general concepts (e.g., “a rose,” “a floral pattern,” or “an ornate baroque background”).
- Commonplace, stock, functional, or public-domain design elements are not protectable; protection extends only to the creator’s particular expressive choices and any original selection and arrangement.
- When a work contains substantial unprotectable matter, substantial-similarity analysis applies a more discerning ordinary-observer approach: the comparison must disregard unprotectable elements and focus on similarity in protectable expression.
- In “crowded” design fields, protection may be thin; competitors may independently create similar-themed designs so long as they do not appropriate protected expressive details.

## Conclusion

The court recognized Folio’s valid copyright in its stylized rose motif but held that the overall pattern’s protectable scope was narrow because much of the arrangement and background relied on stock or public-domain ornamentation; comparing only the protected expression, defendants’ “Baroque Rose” design was not substantially similar, so Folio failed to prove infringement.


Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer Cal., 937 F.2d 759 (2d Cir. 1991)