## Facts

- L.A. Printex Industries, Inc., a fabric printer, created a floral textile design identified as C30020 in 2002.
- L.A. Printex obtained a copyright registration for an unpublished collection that included C30020.
- From 2002 to 2006, L.A. Printex sold over 50,000 yards of fabric bearing C30020 to fabric converters in the Los Angeles apparel market.
- In 2008, L.A. Printex found Aeropostale-branded shirts with a floral design it alleged copied C30020; the asserted difference was lower-quality printing.
- Aeropostale purchased the shirts from Ms. Bubbles, a wholesaler that sourced the fabric elsewhere.
- L.A. Printex sued Aeropostale and Ms. Bubbles for copyright infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether L.A. Printex produced sufficient evidence of defendants’ access to C30020, including by wide dissemination or distribution through intermediaries.
2. Whether the record created a genuine dispute of material fact on substantial similarity under the Ninth Circuit’s extrinsic and intrinsic tests, precluding summary judgment.
3. Whether alleged inaccuracies in the copyright registration invalidated the registration due to knowing misrepresentation and intent to defraud the Copyright Office.
4. Whether defendants could retain an attorneys’ fees award after reversal of summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Aeropostale and Ms. Bubbles.
- The court held a reasonable jury could infer access from wide dissemination based on large-volume sales in the relevant market, without requiring proof of a specific “corporate receipt.”
- The court held the extrinsic test showed triable objective similarities in protectable expression (selection and arrangement of floral elements), making summary judgment improper.
- The court held the record did not establish, as a matter of law, that any registration error was knowingly made with intent to defraud.
- The court vacated the attorneys’ fees award and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Access may be shown by direct evidence, a distribution chain linking the works, or wide dissemination creating a reasonable possibility of exposure in the relevant market.
- Copyright does not protect ideas, general concepts, or stock elements, but does protect original selection, coordination, and arrangement of otherwise unprotectable components.
- In the Ninth Circuit, summary judgment substantial-similarity analysis is limited to the extrinsic (objective) test; the intrinsic (ordinary observer “total concept and feel”) test is for the trier of fact when objective similarity is triable.
- Inaccuracies in a copyright application do not invalidate registration absent evidence of knowing misrepresentation and intent to defraud.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit revived L.A. Printex’s infringement claim because evidence of market-wide dissemination supported an inference of access and objective similarities in protectable expressive arrangement created a jury question; alleged registration errors did not bar enforcement without proof of fraudulent intent, and the fee award was vacated on remand.


L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012)