Tangle Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc.

Background

Tangle is a toy manufacturer and distributor incorporated in California. It holds copyrights for nine sculptural works consisting of seventeen or eighteen interlocking, 90-degree curved pieces. Tangle sells replicas through authorized dealers and also sells other toy versions that are not copyrighted.

The defendants—Aritzia, Inc., Aritzia LP, and Unites States of Aritzia, Inc.—are Canadian entities located in Vancouver. Tangle alleged that, beginning in spring 2023, Aritzia displayed pink-chrome sculptures made of eighteen interlocking, 90-degree curved pieces in its storefronts and featured or allowed photos and videos of them on social media. Tangle claimed copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and trade-dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that Tangle was trying to protect an unprotectable idea rather than protected artistic expression. Aritzia, Inc. also challenged personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), which concerns whether the court has power over a defendant.

Copyright Claim

The court held that Tangle had not plausibly alleged either a valid copyright claim or copying of protected aspects of its works. The court explained that copyright protects original expression, not ideas, styles, or standard elements. Tangle’s theory treated the “core expression” of its works as a broad style consisting of interlocking tubular sculptures, including different configurations, sizes, finishes, and positions. The court found that this theory lacked clear outer boundaries and sought protection for an idea rather than a specific, fixed work.

The court also applied the copyright substantial-similarity analysis. It determined that the relevant range of expression was narrow, so the works would need to be virtually identical for the alleged copying to amount to unlawful appropriation. The court identified unprotectable elements including 90-degree curved tubular pieces, interlocking sculptures, and the color pink or pink chrome. It recognized that the selection, coordination, and arrangement of eighteen interlocking pieces could be protectable, but found that the differences in loop arrangement, size, color, and finish between the compared works were substantial. The court also noted that the complaint did not allege that the Aritzia sculpture was kinetic or manipulable. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the copyright claim on these grounds.

Trade-Dress Claim

Trade dress is the overall appearance or design that identifies the source of a product or service. The court held that Tangle had not met the notice requirement for this claim because the Second Amended Complaint did not identify the alleged trade dress with sufficient precision. The court could not determine whether Tangle claimed protection for chrome pink, segmented tubular sculptures, chrome-pink segmented tubular sculptures, or another combination of elements.

The court also noted that the complaint lacked well-pleaded allegations that the alleged trade-dress elements were nonfunctional and either inherently distinctive or had acquired a meaning identifying Tangle as their source. Although the defendants had not moved to dismiss on those additional grounds, the court stated that Tangle should address them if it amended the claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss the trade-dress claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss and dismissed Tangle’s Second Amended Complaint without prejudice, with leave to amend. Tangle could file an amended complaint by November 8, 2023, if it could do so in good faith and consistently with Rule 11. The order stated that it was without prejudice to Aritzia, Inc.’s ability to reassert its objections to personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).