U.S. Supreme Court questions H&M's bid to sew up copyright win

(Reuters) - A fabric-design company seemed to gain some traction Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court on its argument that it shouldn't have lost its copyright infringement lawsuit against fashion retailer H&M Hennes & Mauritz because of a "good-faith mistake," in a case it said could threaten "countless" copyright registrations.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor was skeptical at Monday's oral arguments of Unicolors' portrayal of itself as a defender of artists' rights, and other justices suggested that the case could be thrown out altogether.

Unicolors sued Sweden-based H&M in 2016 over a jacket that it said copied its fabric-design copyright. H&M, which has said that Unicolors has sued "virtually every major clothing retailer in America," argued that the company had obtained its copyright registration through fraud on the U.S. Copyright Office.

A jury found for Unicolors, and a Los Angeles federal judge later awarded it over $750,000 in damages and attorneys' fees.

The 9th Circuit reversed the award last year based on inaccuracies in Unicolors' federal copyright registration. It said the application didn't meet the U.S. Copyright Office's requirements, that Unicolors knew this when it applied, and whether it meant to defraud the copyright office was irrelevant.

Arguing for Unicolors on Monday, Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe said it had honestly misunderstood the law, and that the decision should be reversed because Congress "considered it more important to give authors and artists an effective remedy against IP thieves" than "demand perfect compliance with complex legal requirements."

"I understand you want to make this about lay people, artists and poets," Sotomayor told Rosenkranz. "But there's an argument here that your client is not an artist or poet," but a "troll."

Melissa Patterson of the U.S. Solicitor General's office agreed with Unicolors that the decision would "jeopardize many thousands of copyright registrations" based on criteria "never before thought to give rise to a risk of invalidation."

H&M's attorney Peter Stris of Stris & Maher said that "at a minimum," the relevant statute "doesn't excuse unreasonable mistakes."

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Stris if a party can "lose their ability to recover simply because they were honestly confused about a legal requirement."

Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas asked if the case should be dismissed because Unicolors' petition focused on a different question than it presented Monday.

The case is Unicolors Inc v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 20-915.

For Unicolors: Josh Rosenkranz of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

For H&M: Peter Stris of Stris & Maher

For the U.S.: Melissa Patterson of the U.S. Department of Justice

Read more:

Unicolors' copyright win against H&M unravels in 9th Circuit

SCOTUS to review H&M's 9th Circuit win in copyright dispute