## Facts

- Jane Galiano owned Gianna, Inc., a business that designed clothing and advised clients on professional attire.
- In 1995, Gianna and Harrah’s entered a design consulting agreement for Gianna to create casino employee uniform designs.
- Because Gianna could not manufacture uniforms, it arranged for Harrah’s existing suppliers to produce prototypes and uniforms based on Gianna’s designs.
- The design consulting agreement expired in December 1995, and negotiations to extend it failed.
- In May 1996, the parties executed a settlement agreement providing a lump-sum payment and a royalty scheme if Harrah’s used specified Gianna designs.
- After the settlement, Harrah’s continued ordering uniforms from suppliers that Gianna alleged incorporated its designs.
- Gianna later registered a “collection” of uniform designs with the U.S. Copyright Office and sued Harrah’s for copyright infringement (along with related contract claims).
- Harrah’s counterclaimed, alleging fraud on the Copyright Office in connection with Gianna’s registration.

## Issues

1. Whether Gianna owned a valid copyright in the casino uniform designs, given the Copyright Act’s “useful article” limitation and the requirement that protectable features be conceptually separable from utilitarian aspects.
2. Whether the district court’s denial of Gianna’s motion for summary judgment on Harrah’s fraud-on-the-Copyright-Office counterclaim was appealable.
3. Whether the district court properly awarded attorney’s fees to Harrah’s.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for Harrah’s on Gianna’s copyright infringement claim because the designs at issue were not protected by a valid copyright.
- Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction Gianna’s appeal challenging the denial of its motion for summary judgment on Harrah’s fraud counterclaim.
- Vacated and remanded the attorney’s-fee award for reconsideration.

## Legal Principles

- Clothing and uniforms are “useful articles”; copyright protection, if any, extends only to pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and exist independently of, the article’s utilitarian aspects.
- A plaintiff alleging infringement must show ownership of a valid copyright; where asserted design elements are primarily functional and not conceptually separable, the claim fails as a matter of law.
- A district court’s denial of summary judgment is generally not an appealable final decision when the underlying claim or counterclaim remains unresolved.
- Attorney’s-fee awards in copyright cases must be assessed under the governing statutory standards and may require reconsideration when the procedural posture and remaining claims affect prevailing-party and related determinations.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the casino uniform designs were uncopyrightable useful articles absent separable artistic features, dismissed the attempt to appeal a nonfinal denial of summary judgment on a pending fraud counterclaim, and sent the attorney’s-fee award back to the district court for reevaluation.


Galiano v. Harrah's Operating Co., 416 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2005)