Kristen N. Cooley v. Target Corporation

Background

Kristen N. Cooley, guardian of the estate of N.O.C., a minor, sued Target Corporation, Target Enterprise, Inc., and John Does 1-10. Cooley alleged that Target copied twelve of N.O.C.’s registered artworks and used them in seventeen Cat & Jack clothing and accessory products. The case was narrowed from fifteen works to twelve. Cooley moved for partial summary judgment on copyright ownership and substantial similarity. Target moved for summary judgment, arguing that Cooley lacked valid copyright ownership and could not prove copying. The parties also moved to exclude expert testimony.

Target learned of N.O.C.’s artwork in 2018 through a Target employee’s discovery of a video on the Instagram account of Krink, an art-supply company. The court noted that the video was posted in May 2018, after the alleged infringement. Target presented evidence that its scribble-dot design was developed in 2017 for the summer and fall 2018 “Kid Creator” theme. Target’s designer Rebecca Davis stated that she created the design independently, and Target later stated that one accused product had been created by its business partner, Delta Galil, in September 2017.

Court’s Analysis

To prove copyright infringement, Cooley had to show ownership of valid copyrights and that Target copied original elements of the works. Because there was no direct evidence of copying, Cooley relied on indirect proof: Target’s access to the works and substantial similarity between the works and the accused products.

The court held that Cooley could not show that Target had a reasonable possibility of accessing the works before the alleged infringement. Posting a work on the internet, without more, did not establish wide dissemination. The court considered the available evidence for each work, including publication dates, social-media interactions, website visits, and appearances in videos or an art show. It found that the evidence did not establish considerable publicity or public dissemination. Works 1 and 9 were first disseminated after Target’s designs had been created, so they could not establish prior access.

The court also rejected Cooley’s apparent “chain of events” theory. Cooley did not identify evidence connecting Davis or Delta Galil to N.O.C.’s artwork before the alleged infringement. The fact that Target designers used the internet for inspiration did not, by itself, establish that they encountered these specific works.

Because the court granted summary judgment on the lack of evidence of access, it did not address Target’s argument that the copyright-registration certificates contained material inaccuracies requiring further consideration by the Register of Copyrights.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank ordered the following:

- Target Corporation and Target Enterprise’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. - Cooley’s motion for partial summary judgment was DENIED AS MOOT. - Target’s motion to exclude expert testimony was DENIED AS MOOT. - Cooley’s motion to exclude expert testimony was DENIED AS MOOT. - Cooley’s claims against Target Corporation and Target Enterprise were DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The court also noted that Cooley had identified a separate potential copyright claim involving N.O.C.’s smiley-face designs and encouraged the parties to discuss resolving that matter, but it did not rule on that potential claim.