Cellular Accessories for Less, Inc. v. Trinitas LLC
2014 WL 5700112, 65 F. Supp. 3d 909 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A certificate of copyright registration creates a prima facie case of a valid copyright, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove the work lacks the minimal degree of creativity required for protection. Factual compilations, such as website product descriptions and FAQs, are copyrightable if their selection, coordination, or arrangement is sufficiently original.
Facts:
- Cellular Accessories for Less, Inc. (CAFL) operates a website selling mobile phone accessories, for which it creates extended product descriptions that add original text to basic manufacturer specifications.
- David Oakes, a former CAFL employee, founded a competing company, Trinitas LLC.
- Trinitas's website duplicated approximately 971 product descriptions and the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section from CAFL's website.
- Trinitas's website designer testified that Oakes instructed her to copy and paste product descriptions and images directly from CAFL's website onto the Trinitas site.
- The copied content included text authored by a CAFL employee for a specific Bluetooth headset, as well as CAFL's unique arrangement of facts and formatting for product information.
- After CAFL sent DMCA takedown notices, Trinitas began to alter the product descriptions and remove the copied FAQ and Corporate Account sections.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff's counsel sent Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices to the web host for Defendants' website.
- Plaintiff obtained Copyright Registration No. TX 7549240 for its website content.
- Plaintiff Cellular Accessories for Less, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court (a court of first instance) against Defendants Trinitas LLC and David Oakes for copyright infringement, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff does not own a valid copyright and did not possess any protectable interest in the allegedly infringed content.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether a defendant's copying of a competitor's website content, including product descriptions and FAQs, constitutes copyright infringement, thereby precluding summary judgment for the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Pregerson, D.J.
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Trinitas infringed on CAFL's valid copyright, precluding summary judgment on the issue of liability. CAFL's certificate of registration establishes prima facie evidence of a valid copyright, shifting the burden to Trinitas to prove the website content is not original. Trinitas failed to meet this burden, as it did not demonstrate that the 971 allegedly copied descriptions lacked the 'extremely low' level of creativity required for protection under Feist. Furthermore, the independent selection and arrangement of facts in the product listings and FAQ section can possess the requisite originality for copyright protection. Because Trinitas's website designer admitted to direct copying at Oakes' instruction, a substantial similarity analysis is not required, as this admission constitutes direct evidence of copying presumptively protectable material. Therefore, genuine factual disputes remain regarding the originality of the content and the copying, making summary judgment on the infringement claim inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the low threshold for originality in copyright law, especially concerning factual compilations like commercial website content. It clarifies that when a defendant moves for summary judgment by challenging originality, the burden is squarely on them to dissect the work and prove the copied elements are unprotectable. The court's holding that direct evidence of copying (such as an admission) obviates the need for a complex 'substantial similarity' analysis provides a powerful and streamlined path for plaintiffs in clear-cut 'copy-paste' infringement scenarios. This decision serves as a significant precedent for digital copyright litigation, reinforcing that the wholesale duplication of a competitor's website, even if it consists of arranged product data, is a triable offense.
