## Facts

- Jetmax Limited designed, manufactured, and sold an ornamental string-light product known as the “Tear Drop Light Set,” featuring sculpted, tear-drop-shaped covers with a wire frame over the covers.
- Jetmax claimed copyright protection for the design and alleged it owned a valid copyright registration certificate for the work (Registration No. VAu 978-587), described as a “Metal Wire Wrapped Tear Drop Light Set.”
- Jetmax’s product included decorative elements such as eight sets of double grooves and, as sold, included an iridescent finish and ornamental dangling stones.
- Advance International, Inc. manufactured a competing product (the “Advance Light Set”), and Big Lots, Inc. sold it at retail. An individual associated with Advance (Herbert Feinberg) was also named as a defendant.
- The Advance Light Set likewise used molded, decorative tear-drop-shaped covers with a wire frame and eight sets of double grooves, but it did not include the iridescent finish or dangling stones.
- Jetmax sued for copyright infringement, alleging the Advance Light Set copied protectable expression embodied in Jetmax’s tear-drop light-cover design.
- Jetmax moved for summary judgment, seeking a determination of infringement and willfulness.
- Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) Jetmax did not have/own a valid registration and (2) the Tear Drop Light Set was not copyrightable because it was a useful article and lacked originality.

## Issues

1. Whether the Tear Drop Light Set’s decorative light-cover features could be identified separately and exist independently from the light set’s utilitarian function under 17 U.S.C. § 101 and *Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.*.
2. Whether Jetmax’s asserted copyright registration and ownership were sufficiently established to support an infringement claim at the summary-judgment stage.
3. Whether the record required judgment as a matter of law on (a) originality/copyrightability, (b) substantial similarity, and (c) willfulness, or instead left triable fact disputes.

## Decision

- Jetmax’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
- Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.
- The court held that factual disputes remained regarding the protectability of the design elements (including separability and originality), the registration/ownership challenges, and infringement-related questions such as substantial similarity and willfulness.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects original pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features of a useful article only if the features (1) can be perceived as a work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as protectable works on their own if imagined separately.
- Under *Star Athletica*, the separability inquiry focuses on whether the artistic features can be identified separately from the article and can exist independently of the article’s utilitarian aspects.
- Originality requires only a minimal degree of creativity, but whether a particular combination of design elements meets that standard may present a fact question when the record supports competing inferences.
- A certificate of registration generally supports an inference of validity, but challenges based on ownership, accuracy, or other asserted defects may require fact development if not resolvable on the existing record.
- Summary judgment is not appropriate where a reasonable factfinder could disagree about what elements are protectable, whether the accused work is substantially similar to those protectable elements, or whether the defendant acted with willful intent.

## Conclusion

The Southern District of New York denied both sides’ summary-judgment motions in Jetmax’s copyright dispute over ornamental tear-drop light-cover designs, concluding that a jury must resolve disputed questions about separability and originality under *Star Athletica*, the effect of defendants’ challenges to Jetmax’s registration and ownership, and whether the accused light set was substantially similar to protectable expression and copied it willfully.


Jetmax Limited v. Big Lots, Inc., 2017 WL 3726756 (2017)