On February 24, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated 6-3 decision in Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., No. 20–915 (Feb. 24, 2022). The ruling stands to protect the legal advantages of a copyright registration from being wiped out by inadvertent error — a win for lay participants in the copyright legal system and enforcement of "otherwise validly registered copyrights."

Following a jury verdict in favor of design company Unicolors against major clothing retailer H&M for copyright infringement, H&M sought judgment as a matter of law that Unicolors' copyright registration certificate was invalid and could not be used to sue H&M for infringement. The certificate, H&M alleged, was inaccurate and improper in seeking to register more than 30 separate design works in a single registration. Such group registrations are only permitted where the included works were published together in the same unit of publication — a circumstance that did not apply to Unicolors' separately published designs.

Although the district court denied H&M's motion for judgment as a matter of law citing Unicolors' lack of knowledge as to the inaccuracy of its filing, the Ninth Circuit reversed the over $750,000 judgment for statutory infringement and fees secured by Unicolors. According to the Ninth Circuit, whether inadvertent or not, only true mistakes of fact were excusable under a strict reading of the Copyright Act, which provides safe harbor from invalidation when "inaccurate information was included on the application" without "knowledge that it was inaccurate." 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). Here, Unicolors knew factually that its works were not published in a single unit of publication, but incorrectly interpreted the law on what could be included in a single application. Thus, the Ninth Circuit held Unicolors' mistake could not be excused.

In an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, noting that mistakes of law and fact in the context of copyright registration may be inextricably intertwined when, as in this case, an applicant is simply "not aware of the legal requirement that rendered the [factual] information in its application inaccurate[.]" Unicolors, slip op. at 5. Those applicants often include "novelists, poets, painters, designers, and others without legal training" that Congress sought to protect through the Copyright Act by making it easier, not harder, for "nonlawyers" to secure copyright protection. Id. at 6-7. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

This does not mean that all alleged mistakes should be forgiven without question. Whether an applicant acted with or without "knowledge" of an inaccuracy remains a question of fact, and this requirement also might be satisfied by a finding of willful blindness. So, while nonlawyers can feel more confident in their pursuit of copyright protection, they should still take care in the process.