## Facts

- Segrets, Inc. designed and sold women’s sweaters, including “Blanket Stitch” and “Primitive Patterns,” and registered copyrights for both designs.
- Segrets attached copyright notices to the sweaters using tags.
- Gillman Knitwear Co. purchased Segrets sweaters and sent them to an overseas manufacturer to serve as models for Gillman’s products.
- Gillman’s “Christie I” sweater copied the Blanket Stitch design; the primary difference identified was color.
- Gillman’s “Christie II” sweater was described by Gillman as largely identical to Christie I, with minor changes to embroidery and embellishments.
- Gillman’s “Charro” sweater used Primitive Patterns as a reference, rearranging some stitches and patterns and selling a “stone” colorway different from Segrets’s palette.
- Segrets sued under the Copyright Act, alleging infringement by Christie I and Christie II (Blanket Stitch) and by Charro (Primitive Patterns).
- The district court granted partial summary judgment: Segrets’s copyrights were valid; Gillman actually copied both designs; and Christie I infringed Blanket Stitch.
- A bench trial resolved remaining issues, finding Christie II infringed Blanket Stitch, the stone-colored Charro infringed Primitive Patterns, infringement was willful, and awarding statutory damages plus attorney’s fees and costs.
- While the case was pending, the Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial when statutory damages are sought in copyright cases.

## Issues

1. Whether Christie I and Christie II were substantially similar to (and thus infringed) Segrets’s Blanket Stitch design.
2. Whether the stone-colored Charro sweater was substantially similar to (and thus infringed) Segrets’s Primitive Patterns design.
3. Whether the Seventh Amendment entitled Gillman to a jury trial on statutory damages and related fact questions, including willfulness and disputed infringement.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment that Segrets’s copyrights were valid and that Gillman actually copied the designs.
- Affirmed that Christie I infringed Blanket Stitch as a matter of law.
- Affirmed after-trial finding that Christie II infringed Blanket Stitch.
- Vacated and remanded for a jury trial on whether the stone-colored Charro infringed Primitive Patterns.
- Vacated and remanded for a jury trial on willfulness for each instance of infringement and on statutory damages.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright registrations create a presumption of validity under 17 U.S.C. § 410(c), rebuttable by the challenger.
- Proof of infringement requires copying and actionable substantial similarity; direct evidence of copying may include acquiring the copyrighted work and using it as a model for production.
- Substantial similarity is assessed by the overall look and feel to the ordinary observer; minor changes (including color or small decorative alterations) do not preclude infringement when the protected selection and arrangement remains essentially the same.
- Industry practice of making “knock-offs” does not excuse copying of protected expression.
- When statutory damages are sought, the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial; issues closely tied to statutory damages, including willfulness and disputed infringement fact questions, must be submitted to the jury when properly demanded.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld liability for infringement of Segrets’s Blanket Stitch design by Gillman’s Christie I and Christie II sweaters, but, because statutory damages were sought, required a jury to decide the disputed Charro infringement claim, willfulness, and the amount of statutory damages, and remanded for those determinations.


Segrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitwear Co., 207 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2000)