Maria Solange Ferrarini v. Ipek Irgit

Background

Maria Solange Ferrarini alleged that she created a colorful, hand-knitted crochet bikini design in 1998 and sold the bikinis directly to the public. She alleged that Ipek Irgit purchased one of her bikinis in 2012, founded Kiini, LLC in 2013, and began manufacturing and selling bikinis using Ferrarini’s design in 2014. Ferrarini alleged that Irgit registered the design with the United States Copyright Office in Irgit’s own name and later assigned the copyright to Kiini, LLC.

Ferrarini asserted copyright infringement, violation of California’s unfair competition law, conversion or civil theft under California and New York law, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Copyright Claim

The defendants argued that the copyright claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court determined that the claim was fundamentally an ownership claim because Ferrarini alleged that Irgit falsely claimed authorship and because both Ferrarini and the defendants had registered the bikini design. The court explained that an ownership claim accrues when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have been put on notice that the ownership claim was disputed, including through an express repudiation of the plaintiff’s ownership.

The court held that the complaint did not show that Ferrarini knew or should have known about the defendants’ conduct before 2018. The defendants’ copyright registration, by itself, did not begin the limitations period, and the complaint did not indicate that Ferrarini was aware of the defendants’ marketing and sales before 2018. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in Ferrarini’s favor, the court concluded that the claim accrued in 2018 and was not time-barred. The motion to dismiss was therefore denied as to the copyright infringement claim. The court did not decide the ultimate ownership dispute or whether infringement occurred.

State-Law Claims

The court held that Ferrarini’s California unfair competition claim was preempted, meaning federal copyright law displaced the state-law claim. The claim was based on the defendants’ alleged copying, misappropriation, and presentation of the bikini design as Irgit’s own. The court concluded that these allegations sought to enforce rights equivalent to copyright rights and did not provide an additional element sufficient to avoid preemption. The court also rejected Ferrarini’s argument that the allegations described reverse passing off, because the defendants allegedly made their own bikinis using a copied design rather than selling Ferrarini’s physical products as their own.

The conversion claim was dismissed as preempted and, independently, for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the alleged conduct concerned rights equivalent to copyright rights. It also stated that intellectual property could not support a conversion claim under the laws at issue and that the complaint did not allege that the defendants exercised control over the copyright to Ferrarini’s complete exclusion, since it alleged that Ferrarini continued making and selling her bikinis.

The intentional-interference claim was also dismissed as preempted and for failure to state a claim. The court found that the alleged interference was based on the same copying and unauthorized publication underlying the copyright claim. Separately, the court held that the complaint did not identify specific, non-speculative economic relationships or explain how the defendants intentionally and directly interfered with them. The court also dismissed other statutes listed within the unfair-competition count because the complaint did not plead supporting facts and Ferrarini did not address those alleged violations in her opposition.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s order granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Ferrarini’s state-law claims and denied the motion as to Ferrarini’s copyright infringement claim. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 69. The opinion does not state that any dismissal was with or without prejudice.