Ducky Ltd. v. Iviliia Millionic IT Sp. z o.o.

Background

This copyright case concerns twenty-two United States copyright registrations issued to Iviliia Millionic IT Sp. z o.o. for two-dimensional artwork featured in Ducky’s mobile application game, Melon Sandbox. Ducky alleged that it owns the game’s copyrights and that Iviliia fraudulently registered copyrights in the game and its artwork. Ducky also alleged that Iviliia used the registrations to assert copyrights against third parties and obtain licensing fees or settlement payments.

Ducky filed the lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, including declarations that Iviliia’s copyright registrations were fraudulent, that Ducky had not infringed those registrations, and that Ducky owned the copyrights in the game and its characters and artwork. Ducky then filed an ex parte motion asking the court to refer questions to the Register of Copyrights under 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(2). An ex parte motion is one decided without a response from the opposing party. The opinion states that Iviliia had not responded to the complaint or the motion, and that no counsel for Iviliia had entered an appearance.

Legal standard

Section 411(b) addresses inaccurate information in copyright-registration applications. A registration may fail to satisfy the Copyright Act’s requirements if the applicant knowingly included inaccurate information and the inaccuracy would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration. Section 411(b)(2) requires a court to ask the Register whether the information, if known, would have caused refusal when the statutory circumstances are alleged.

The court explained that a party seeking a referral need not prove that the registration is invalid. At this stage, the party must make a threshold showing—similar to a preliminary showing sufficient to trigger the court’s referral authority—that the application included inaccurate information and that the registrant knowingly included it or was willfully blind to it. The referral is not a final determination that the registration is invalid.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Ducky had supplied sufficient allegations and evidence for the referral. Ducky submitted declarations from the game’s two co-creators, a predecessor who had assigned rights in the game to Ducky, a current Ducky director, and Ducky’s Polish counsel.

The court found a sufficient basis to consider Ducky’s allegation that Iviliia’s applications contained inaccurate information. The applications identified Iviliia as the copyright claimant based on a transfer by written agreement, but Iviliia had produced no such agreement. The court also considered evidence that Iviliia was not involved in creating, developing, authoring, or publishing the game or its artwork; did not own rights or interests in them; had no relationship with Ducky or Ducky’s predecessors; asserted the registrations against third parties on Ducky’s behalf; and entered licensing agreements requiring third parties to pay Iviliia fees.

The court also found a sufficient basis for Ducky’s allegation that Iviliia knowingly included inaccurate information, or was at least willfully blind to it, in its submissions to the Copyright Office. The court viewed the submissions in the light most favorable to Iviliia because of the motion’s procedural posture.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Beth Freeman granted Ducky’s motion for referral. The court requested that the Register of Copyrights advise whether any or all of the listed information, if known, would have caused the Register to refuse Iviliia’s twenty-two disputed registrations.

The court requested a response within 90 days from the date of the request, by September 2, 2025. It directed the Clerk of Court to send the order, the complaint, the motion, declarations, and exhibits to the Register of Copyrights. The order resolved Docket No. 37. The opinion did not finally determine whether Iviliia’s registrations were invalid.