Maria Solange Ferrarini v. Ipek Irgit

Background

Maria Solange Ferrarini sued Ipek Irgit and Kiini, LLC. Her only remaining claim alleged copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501. The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ferrarini’s state-law claims but denied dismissal of the copyright claim because, based on the complaint and without full discovery, it was not apparent that the claim was more than three years old.

Ferrarini makes and sells a hand-knitted, crocheted bikini design. Kiini began selling swimwear in 2013, including the Kiini Bikini. Irgit obtained a copyright registration for the Kiini Bikini with an effective date of December 18, 2014, and assigned that copyright to Kiini on August 24, 2015. Ferrarini later sought registration of the Ferrarini Bikini; that registration had an effective date of June 23, 2018.

Summary-Judgment Standard

The court explained that summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Ferrarini, the party opposing the motion, but Ferrarini still had to identify admissible evidence supporting a genuine factual dispute.

Statute of Limitations

The Copyright Act requires an infringement claim to be filed within three years after it accrues. The parties agreed that Ferrarini first asserted her copyright claim in the First Amended Complaint filed on April 11, 2019. Thus, the claim was time-barred if it accrued on or before April 11, 2016.

The court held that the central issue was copyright ownership, not merely whether copying occurred. When ownership is disputed and the defendant has an earlier copyright registration for the disputed work, the ownership dispute accrues when the copyright owner is put on notice that the other party rejects the owner’s claim. Notice can come from public statements, communications between the parties, or the defendant’s conspicuous use of the work without paying royalties or giving credit.

The court found no genuine dispute that Ferrarini had notice before April 11, 2016. In her deposition, she testified that she became aware that Kiini had copied the bikinis approximately in 2013 or 2014. On September 28, 2014, she sent a message to Kiini’s Facebook account calling Kiini’s product a “perfect copy” of her creation. On November 8, 2015, she posted on Facebook that Kiini was claiming to be the creator of bikinis. The court also considered Kiini’s copyright registration and the widespread media coverage of the Kiini Bikini.

Ferrarini later asserted in her legal memorandum that she did not become aware of Kiini’s sales until mid-2016. The court rejected that assertion because it was unsupported by evidence, conflicted with her deposition testimony, and was not clarified or corrected after the deposition. The court concluded that the record showed Ferrarini knew no later than 2015 about both Kiini’s sales and the ownership dispute.

Disposition

The court ruled that Ferrarini’s copyright claim was time-barred and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The court expressly did not decide whether the bikini design was a useful article and therefore not subject to copyright protection.