Turn On Products, Inc. v. Full Circle Trends, Inc.

Background

Turn On Products, Inc. brought a copyright-infringement action against Full Circle Trends, Inc., alleging copying of a rose-patterned dress design. Turn On Products copyrighted its rose-print design on October 4, 2017. The opinion states that both parties are in the women’s apparel business and that there was no dispute about the copyright’s validity.

Full Circle Trends moved for summary judgment, asking the court to enter judgment without a trial because the designs were not substantially similar. Full Circle Trends did not challenge access to Turn On Products’ design; the motion focused on substantial similarity.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In a copyright case, a plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements. Copying may be shown through access to the work and substantial similarity.

The court explained that substantial similarity ordinarily asks whether an ordinary observer would overlook the differences and view the works as having the same aesthetic appeal. The works are considered based on their overall concept and feel, while elements that copyright law does not protect must be excluded. A general idea, such as a rose pattern or a dress depicting roses, is not itself protectable.

Court’s Analysis

The court visually inspected photographs and physical samples of the two designs. It found that no jury could find them substantially similar. The samples showed substantially more open space between the flower groups in Turn On Products’ design, which changed the designs’ overall appearance.

The court also identified several other differences: Turn On Products’ dress included daisies among the roses, while Full Circle Trends’ design did not; Turn On Products’ roses had more contrast in their shaded portions; Full Circle Trends’ design had smaller rose groups between larger roses, while Turn On Products’ design had only larger flowers; and the leaves differed in placement, texture, and appearance.

The court concluded that the main similarity was the use of rose groups over open space. Because the inclusion of roses was not protectable by itself, and the differences created a distinct overall appearance for each design, the court held that no reasonable factfinder could find substantial similarity.

Disposition

Judge William H. Pauley III granted Full Circle Trends, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 23 and mark the case as closed.