Kristen N. Cooley v. Target Corporation

Background

Kristen N. Cooley, guardian of the estate of N.O.C., a minor, sued Target Corporation and Target Enterprise, Inc. Cooley alleged that N.O.C., an artist living with Autism, created original works featuring “sketch-style dot art.” The estate was identified as the owner of registered copyrights in fifteen works created by N.O.C.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Target contacted N.O.C. through Instagram and invited him to Target’s Minnesota headquarters in July 2018 to participate in a social-media promotional project called “CrushCon.” In August 2018, Cooley discovered that Target was selling Cat & Jack clothing and related products featuring a “scribble dots” design. Cooley alleged that these products copied or were derivative works of N.O.C.’s artwork. She notified Target of the alleged infringement in September 2018, and Target denied the allegation.

The complaint asserted two claims: direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 and inducement and contributory copyright infringement. The case was filed in the Central District of California and later transferred to the District of Minnesota.

Target’s Motion

Target moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally recognized claim. Target argued that the Cat & Jack products did not infringe N.O.C.’s works as a matter of law. It contended that Cooley could not claim copyright protection in the general idea of colored circles or in common patterns such as polka dots. Target also argued that the products and N.O.C.’s works lacked substantial similarity.

Court’s Analysis

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make the claimed right to relief plausible rather than speculative. The court explained that copyright infringement requires ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements. Copying may be shown through direct evidence or through access to the copyrighted material combined with substantial similarity between the works.

The court described substantial similarity as involving both similarity of ideas and similarity of expression. The “extrinsic” test evaluates objective similarities, including shapes, colors, materials, arrangement, and subject matter. Copyright law does not protect ideas themselves or unprotectable elements, but protection may extend to an original selection, arrangement, and combination of otherwise unprotected elements.

The court held that Cooley sufficiently alleged original and creative elements, including irregularly shaped and imperfect circles, different colors, and imperfect alignment at varying distances. It also held that the alleged arrangement of those elements could qualify for copyright protection.

The court further held that Cooley sufficiently alleged substantial similarity between N.O.C.’s works and the Target products. The First Amended Complaint included images and side-by-side comparisons, and alleged similarities in shapes, colors, and arrangements. The court acknowledged Target’s claimed differences but concluded that those alleged differences did not eliminate the similarities shown in the complaint. In a footnote, the court also stated that the complaint alleged similarity of expression under the “intrinsic” test, which asks whether an ordinary, reasonable observer would find the works substantially similar as a whole.

Disposition

The court concluded that dismissal at that early stage was not warranted and denied Target’s motion to dismiss. The order did not decide whether Cooley would ultimately prevail. The court noted that later stages could involve discovery and expert evidence and encouraged the parties to consider settlement.