Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.

Background

Bold Limited operates the MyPerfectResume website and provides resume-building services using a database of suggested resume text called Text Tuner Content. Bold registered the 2018, 2019, and 2020 versions of that content with the U.S. Copyright Office. Rocket Resume, Inc. and Stephen Zimmerman operate a competing website that provides suggested resume content.

Bold alleged that some Rocket Resume content was identical to content in Bold’s database, including digital watermarks that Bold used to detect copying. The active claim in this case was Bold Limited’s copyright claim. The court addressed defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on three issues: Bold’s compilation-infringement theory, its requests for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, and its fair-market-value license theory.

Compilation-Infringement Theory

A compilation can receive copyright protection when its selection, coordination, or arrangement contains at least a minimal amount of original creativity. The court explained that copyright infringement requires proof of a valid copyright and copying, including both copying and unlawful appropriation.

Defendants argued that Bold had evidence of copying individual text entries but no evidence that Rocket Resume copied the selection, coordination, or arrangement of Bold’s database. The court agreed. It found that Bold had not identified direct evidence or evidence showing similarities in the databases’ selection, coordination, or arrangement that would support an inference of copying. Bold’s expert analyzed similar or identical individual elements but did not analyze the databases’ selection, coordination, or arrangement. The court also found that Bold offered no other evidence that would adequately present its compilation theory to a jury.

The court therefore granted summary judgment to defendants on Bold’s compilation-infringement claim.

Statutory Damages and Attorneys’ Fees

The court held that Bold could not recover statutory damages or attorneys’ fees for infringement of the 2018 and 2019 versions of its Text Tuner Content. Those versions were first published on December 31, 2018, and December 31, 2019, respectively, and both had registration effective dates of October 19, 2020. The evidence identified April 2019 as the date of the first infringement. Because infringement began before the effective registration dates, the court held that the Copyright Act barred statutory damages and attorneys’ fees for those versions.

The court reached the same result for the 2020 version. Although that version was first published on August 18, 2020, and registered within three months after publication, the court found that Bold had not identified evidence showing that infringement of that version began later than April 2019. On the record before it, the court treated the alleged infringement as a continuing series that began in April 2019. The court therefore held that the statutory bar also applied to the 2020 version.

The court granted summary judgment to defendants on Bold’s requests for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Fair-Market-Value License Theory

Defendants argued that Bold’s fair-market-value license theory should be excluded because Bold had not disclosed it during fact discovery and because the theory relied on revenue from websites Bold had said were not at issue. Defendants also had a separate motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 concerning this issue.

The court found that defendants’ request was premature. It explained that a request based on alleged discovery violations was more appropriately presented through a Rule 37 motion or a motion in limine, rather than a motion for summary judgment. The court had not yet decided whether to exclude Bold’s theory under Rule 37.

The court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Bold’s fair-market-value license theory.

Order

The court ordered that defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. It granted summary judgment to defendants on Bold’s compilation-infringement claim and on Bold’s requests for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. It denied without prejudice the motion concerning Bold’s fair-market-value license theory.