Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Andrew M. Gass (Bar No. 259694)
`andrew.gass@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Telephone: 415.391.0600
`Facsimile: 415.395.8095
`
`Gabriel S. Gross (Bar No. 254672)
`gabe.gross@lw.com
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650.328.4600
`Facsimile: 650.463.2600
`
`Elana Nightingale Dawson (pro hac vice)
`elana.nightingaledawson@lw.com
`Carolyn M. Homer (Bar No. 286441)
`carolyn.homer@lw.com
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2200
`Facsimile: 202.637.2201
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
` CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF
`RENEWED MOTION AND RENEWED
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Hearing Date: November 4, 2021
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 8 – 4th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Factual Background ............................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Procedural History ................................................................................................. 5
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 5
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Cub Club has not stated a claim for copyright infringement
`(Count I). ................................................................................................................ 6
`1.
`Copyright does not protect the idea of applying skin tones
`to emoji. ..................................................................................................... 9
`Copyright does not protect human features or color
`variations. ................................................................................................. 10
`Cub Club does not state a claim for copyright infringement
`of any protectable element of its copyrighted works. .............................. 13
`Cub Club fails to state a claim for trade dress infringement
`(Count II). ............................................................................................................ 15
`1.
`The Complaint does not identify the elements of Cub
`Club’s alleged trade dress. ....................................................................... 17
`“The insertion of emoji into messages” is a functional task
`that cannot qualify for trade dress protection. ......................................... 18
`Cub Club has not alleged secondary meaning. ........................................ 20
`3.
`Cub Club’s state law claims (Counts III, IV, and V) should be
`dismissed. ............................................................................................................. 20
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 21
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abdin v. CBS Broad. Inc.,
`971 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2020).......................................................................................................11
`
`Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co.,
`831 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Am. Greetings Corp. v. Dan-Dee Imports, Inc.,
`807 F.2d 1136 (3d Cir. 1986)...................................................................................................19
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Arcsoft, Inc. v. Cyberlink Corp.,
`153 F. Supp. 3d 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................15, 16, 17
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Aurora World, Inc. v. Ty Inc.,
`No. 09-cv-08463, 2011 WL 13176413 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2011)..........................................20
`
`Bikram’s Yoga Coll. of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC,
`803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Blehm v. Jacobs,
`702 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................................11
`
`Bryant v. Matvieshen,
`904 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (E.D. Cal. 2012)..............................................................................15, 16
`
`Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.,
`297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Cleary v. News Corp.,
`30 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc.,
`251 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................15, 16, 18
`
`Coffelt v. Autodesk, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-1684, 2017 WL 10403359 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017) .............................................6
`
`Corbello v. Valli,
`974 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................................6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Cory Van Rijn, Inc. v. Cal. Raisin Advisory Bd.,
`697 F. Supp. 1136 (E.D. Cal. 1987)...................................................................................14, 15
`
`Crafty Prods., Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts Co.,
`839 F. App’x 95 (9th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................18, 19, 21
`
`Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Fortune Dynamic, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-769, 2015 WL 12731929 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2015) ....................................16, 18, 19
`
`Dickinson v. Ryan Seacrest Enterprises Inc.,
`839 F. App’x 110 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................21
`
`DO Denim, LLC v. Fried Denim, Inc.,
`634 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)......................................................................................19
`
`Enchant Christmas Light Maze & Mkt. Ltd. v. Glowco, LLC,
`958 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.
`323 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Fayer v. Vaughn,
`649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Fin. Info. Inc. v. Moody’s Investors Serv., Inc.,
`808 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1986).....................................................................................................10
`
`Folkens v. Wyland Worldwide, LLC,
`882 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Fun With Phonics, LLC v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.,
`No. 09-cv-916, 2010 WL 11404474 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2010) .......................................12, 14
`
`Great Minds v. Off. Depot, Inc.,
`945 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2019) ...............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Green Crush LLC v. Paradise Splash I, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-1856, 2018 WL 4940825 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2018) ................................................20
`
`Harvey Cartoons v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc.,
`645 F. Supp. 1564 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).........................................................................................15
`
`High Five Threads, Inc. v. Michigan Farm Bureau,
`No. 20-cv-604, 2021 WL 1809835 (W.D. Mich. May 6, 2021) ........................................13, 15
`
`Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC,
`No. 14-cv-03954, 2014 WL 6892141 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014) .............................................17
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`
`ID7D Co. v. Sears Holding Corp.,
`No. 11-cv-1054, 2012 WL 1247329 (D. Conn. Apr. 13, 2012) ..............................................19
`
`Int’l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc.,
`4 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................15, 16
`
`Kaisha v. Lotte Int’l Am. Corp.,
`No. 15-cv-5477, 2019 WL 8405592 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019),
`aff’d 986 F.3d 250 (3d Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................19
`
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Kittrich Corp. v. United Indus. Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-06211, 2017 WL 10434389 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2017) ..........................................20
`
`Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co.,
`113 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 1997).....................................................................................................17
`
`Lepton Labs, LLC v. Walker,
`55 F. Supp. 3d 1230 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ...............................................................................15, 16
`
`Lima v. United States Dep’t of Educ.,
`947 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................21
`
`Marcus v. ABC Signature Studios, Inc.,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (C.D. Cal. 2017) .....................................................................................7
`
`Masterson v. Walt Disney Co.,
`821 F. App’x 779 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................... passim
`
`Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Ent., Inc.,
`616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended on denial of reh’g (Oct. 21, 2010) ............... passim
`
`Mazer v. Stein,
`347 U.S. 201 (1954) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`McGee v. Benjamin,
`No. 08-cv-11818, 2012 WL 959377 (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 2012) ........................................12, 14
`
`Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. The Ridge Wallet LLC,
`No. 20-cv-04556, 2020 WL 5640233 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020) .............................................17
`
`Motorola Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`No. 97-cv-615, 1997 WL 838877 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 1997),
`aff’d, 135 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................19
`
`Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enters., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Passillas v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`No. 88-cv-4065 1989 WL 418779 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 1989),
`aff’d sub nom. Pasillas v. McDonald’s Corp., 927 F.2d 440 (9th Cir. 1991) .........................11
`
`Pretty in Plastic, Inc. v. Bunn,
`793 F. App’x 593 (9th Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................10, 13
`
`Pretty in Plastic, Inc. v. Bunn,
`No. 18-cv-6091, 2019 WL 1771654 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2019),
`aff’d, 793 F. App’x 593 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................15
`
`Profade Apparel, LLC v. Rd. Runner Sports, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-1254, 2020 WL 5230490 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020)................................................19
`
`Progressive Lighting, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.,
`549 F. App’x 913 (11th Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................13
`
`Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc.,
`883 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2018), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore v. Led
`Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................7, 12
`
`Satava v. Lowry,
`323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................7, 8, 14
`
`Sleep Sci. Partners v. Lieberman,
`No. 09-cv-04200, 2010 WL 1881770 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2010) ............................................16
`
`Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 1998).....................................................................................................12
`
`Swift Harvest USA, LLC v. Boley Int’l HK Ltd,
`No. 19-cv-1700, 2020 WL 7380148 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2020) .............................................20
`
`Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp.,
`517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................21
`
`TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.,
`532 U.S. 23 (2001) ...................................................................................................................18
`
`Tropic Ocean Airways, Inc. v. Floyd,
`598 F. App’x 608 (11th Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................20
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros.,
`529 U.S. 205 (2000) ...........................................................................................................16, 20
`
`Washoutpan.com, LLC v. HD Supply Constr. Supply Ltd.,
`No. 19-cv-00494, 2019 WL 9050859 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019) .............................................17
`
`Williams v. 3DExport,
`No. 19-cv-12240, 2020 WL 532418 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2020) ..........................................8, 11
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`
`
`YZ Prods., Inc. v. Redbubble, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-06615, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2021 WL 2633552 (N.D. Cal. June 24,
`2021) ......................................................................................................................15, 16, 17, 18
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3) ...................................................................................................................16
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...........................................................................................................................6
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) .......................................................................................................................21
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)–(2) .............................................................................................................3
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a).......................................................................................................................12
`
`REGULATION
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on November 4, 2021 at 1:30p.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California, at the San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 8 - 4th Floor, 280
`South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Defendant Apple Inc., through its undersigned counsel, will,
`and hereby does, move to dismiss Plaintiff Cub Club Investment, LLC’s Complaint pursuant to
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
`Apple seeks in its Renewed Motion to Dismiss the dismissal of the Complaint with
`prejudice. The Renewed Motion to Dismiss is based on this Notice, the supporting Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities below, the complete files and records in this action, and any additional
`material and arguments as may be considered in connection with the hearing on the Motion.
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`(1) Whether Plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement (Count I), which is based entirely
`on allegations of copying the idea of depicting human gestures and body parts in varying skin
`tones, rather than any copyrightable expression of that idea, should be dismissed under Rule
`12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`(2) Whether Plaintiff’s claim for trade dress infringement (Count II), which does not
`identify any concrete elements of the purported trade dress, and is based entirely on alleged
`copying of the functional user interface for a smartphone application for which no secondary
`meaning has been alleged, should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim
`upon which relief can be granted.
`(3) Whether Plaintiff’s state law claims (Counts III, IV, and V), which are based on the
`same allegations as its federal copyright and trade dress claims, should be dismissed as preempted
`by federal law.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Copyright protects only the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Plaintiff Cub
`Club Investment has filed an action that contravenes that bedrock legal principle. This case is
`about “emoji,” which are small graphical images made available in text-messaging and similar
`applications, sometimes depicting a representation of a human body part, like a hand making a
`thumbs-up signal. Cub Club alleges it has obtained copyright registrations for several body-part
`emoji, each in five different shades, to approximate the naturally occurring variation in humans’
`skin tones. Apple offers its own body-part emoji, in a different suite of five colors, featuring
`different renditions of the real-world objects depicted: differently contoured fingers, differently
`angled thumbs, and so on. Cub Club asserts that Apple’s emoji infringe the copyrights in Cub
`Club’s emoji, on the theory that Cub Club’s exclusive rights prevent anyone else from offering
`emoji depicting the same body part as Cub Club’s emoji, in five different hues. That contention
`is incorrect as a matter of law. It depends on the premise that Cub Club owns a copyright in the
`idea of chromatically varying emoji, irrespective of whether an alternative rendition of the same
`concept implements the idea differently. Because the Copyright Act and resulting judicial doctrine
`are crystal clear that Cub Club’s exclusive rights do not in fact preclude others from implementing
`the idea of emoji with different skin tones—the very activity Cub Club says gives rise to liability
`here—Cub Club’s copyright infringement allegations fail to state a claim.
`Cub Club’s trade dress claim, and its related state law claims, fare no better. Trade dress,
`like a trademark, merits legal protection only when it (1) is non-functional and (2) serves as an
`indicator of the source of goods or services. Cub Club fails to sufficiently allege either. To the
`contrary, the “dress” that the Complaint accuses Apple of having copied is plainly functional: a
`smartphone interface that lets users select and insert emoji “when sending messages on an Apple
`iPhone.” And the Complaint includes no factual allegations at all suggesting that any aspect of
`Cub Club’s emoji product has acquired secondary meaning in the minds of consumers, as the law
`requires.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`
`Because the Complaint is legally deficient on its face, Apple respectfully asks the Court to
`dismiss it in its entirety.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Factual Background1
`A.
`In 2013, Katrina A. Parrott’s daughter had an idea—that it would “be nice to have emoji
`that look like the person sending them.” (Compl. ¶ 7.) Despite emoji being “ubiquitous” on both
`smartphones and social media platforms, there were limited color options for emoji at that time.
`(Id.) Spurred by her daughter’s idea, Mrs. Parrott saw an opportunity to build a business while
`promoting the concept of diversity in emoji. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8.) To do so, she founded Cub Club
`Investment, LLC and created iDiversicons, which she
`describes as “the world’s first diverse emoji.” (Id.
`¶ 7.) Cub Club then released the iDiversicons
`application on the Apple App Store on October 11,
`2013. (Id. ¶ 8.) The application allows users to insert
`iDiversicons emoji into text messages using the
`keyboard interface shown to the right. (Id. ¶¶ 18, 73.)
`After launching the iDiversicons app, Mrs.
`joined a consortium
`that deals with
`Parrott
`standardization of emoji throughout the technology industry, called “Unicode.”2 She became
`
`
`1 For purposes of this motion, Apple accepts the Complaint’s allegations as true.
`2 The Unicode Consortium is a non-profit corporation founded in 1991 that, through its Unicode
`Technical Committee, develops and maintains the Unicode Standard. (See generally Compl.
`¶¶ 11–14.) The Unicode Standard specifies the visual representation of text or symbols in software
`used for digital communications. (See generally Compl. ¶ 11); The Unicode Consortium, https://
`unicode.org/consortium/consort.html. When device manufacturers use the Unicode Standard,
`unique text and emoji sent from one manufacturer’s devices will result in the equivalent text and
`emoji being displayed on another manufacturer’s devices, and vice versa. See generally The
`Unicode Consortium, https://unicode.org/consortium/consort.html. Although the Complaint
`extensively references the Unicode Consortium, Unicode Technical Committee, and Unicode
`Standard (Compl. ¶¶ 11–14, 16, 20–22, 26, 32, 37, 43), it does not explain any of this information.
`Apple thus provides it for context, which the Court can either take judicial notice of or disregard.
`See Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018) (when ruling on a
`motion to dismiss, a court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact if it is “generally known”
`or “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
`questioned” (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)–(2)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`involved with the Unicode Technical Committee “to raise awareness among technology leaders
`about digital diversity and inclusion issues.” (Id. ¶ 11.) As part of that latter effort, Mrs. Parrott
`submitted multiple proposals to the Unicode Technical Committee advocating for the adoption of
`emoji with skin-tone variation by the Unicode Standard. (Id. ¶¶ 11–14.) Mrs. Parrott also
`presented her proposals at multiple Unicode Technical Committee Meetings, pushing the
`Committee to incorporate the iDiversicons emoji into an updated Unicode Standard for emoji with
`skin-tone variation. (Id.)
`While attending one Unicode Technical Committee meeting in May 2014, Mrs. Parrott met
`Apple Senior Software Engineer Peter Edberg. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 26.) After they met, Mr. Edberg
`reviewed the iDiversicons website and Mrs. Parrott gave him a thumb drive with a sampling of
`iDiversicons emoji (id. ¶¶ 26, 29)—that is, the same emoji Mrs. Parrott was pushing the entire
`Unicode Technical Committee to adopt (id. ¶¶ 11, 14, 43). Around the same time, Mr. Edberg
`helped Mrs. Parrott set up a meeting with Apple’s then-Senior Director for Frameworks and Fonts,
`Celia Vigil, “to explore partnership opportunities between Apple and [Cub Club].” (Id. ¶¶ 27–28.)
`Mr. Edberg also shared with Ms. Vigil the sampling of iDiversicons emoji he had received from
`Mrs. Parrott. (Id. ¶ 30.)
`Mrs. Parrott and Mr. Edberg remained in touch over the following months, corresponding
`about the Unicode Standard, Mrs. Parrott’s iDiversicons app, and Mrs. Parrott’s efforts related to
`representations of diversity on mobile platforms. (Id. ¶¶ 37–38.) Mr. Edberg remained supportive
`of Mrs. Parrott throughout that time, responding to technical questions she posed (id. ¶ 41), and
`giving her feedback on a paper she had written entitled “Mobile Diversity Research” (id. ¶ 39).
`On October 23, 2014, Mr. Edberg told Mrs. Parrott that Ms. Vigil did not see an opportunity
`for Apple to partner with Cub Club, and that Apple would be relying on its “own human interface
`designers to develop diverse emoji based on iDiversicons® emoji.” (Id. ¶ 42.) Notwithstanding
`that news, Mrs. Parrott continued to participate in the Unicode Technical Committee, giving
`another presentation to the Committee on October 28, 2014, this time on “using a color modifier
`pallet[te] to implement the five skin tone options for diverse emoji.” (Id. ¶ 43.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 54 Filed 09/29/21 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`
`On April 9, 2015, Apple released its “first
`diverse emoji . . . using the five skin tone keyboard
`modifier pallet[te]” shown here. (Id. ¶ 46.) A cursory
`comparison between the particular five colors in Cub
`Club’s emoji and the particular five colors in Apple’s
`emoji reveals that they are not the same five colors.
`(See id. ¶ 52.)
`Procedural History
`B.
`Five years later, Cub Club sued Apple in the Western District of Texas. According to Cub
`Club, the “five skin tone version[s]” of Apple’s emoji infringe Cub Club’s copyrights “covering
`emoji with five skin tones.” (Id. ¶¶ 9, 52, 65.) Cub Club also alleges Apple infringed its trade
`dress in the “designs and appearances of the iDiversicons emoji,” such as the keyboard that allows
`users to insert emoji with different skin tones. (Id. ¶¶ 17–18, 74.) In light of the foregoing, Cub
`Club asserts claims for federal copyright infringement (Count I); federal trade dress infringement
`under the Lanham Act (Count II); unfair competition (Count III); misappropriation (Count IV);
`and unjust enrichment (Count V).
`On November 24, 2020, Apple filed a motion to dismiss Cub Club’s complaint (Dkt. 22),
`as well as a motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of California (Dkt. 21). On
`September 7, 2021, the Court granted Apple’s motion to transfer, and transferred this case to the
`Northern District of California. (Dkt. 28.) Thereafter, the parties stipulated and this Court entered
`an order permitting Apple to file a renewed motion to dismiss in light of the change of venue and
`controlling Circuit law. (Dkt. 47.) Apple now files this renewed motion to dismiss.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed when it does not “contain sufficient
`factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Great
`Minds v. Off. Depot, Inc., 945 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`662, 678 (2009)). To determine whether dismissal is warranted, the Court accepts as true the well-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`pleaded allegations in a complaint and construes those facts in the plaintiff’s favor. Id. 3
`“[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to
`dismiss.” Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011). If a complaint’s well-pleaded
`allegations do not show “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” the
`complaint must be dismissed. See id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`Cub Club has not stated a claim for copyright infringement (Count I).
`A.
`“Not all copying . . . is copyright infringement.” Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv.
`Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). That is because copyright “protects authors’ original expression
`in their work but does not protect ideas and facts.” Corbello v. Valli, 974 F.3d 965, 973 (9th Cir.
`2020); see also 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (“In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
`authorship extend to any idea[.]”). This well-established principle, known as the idea-expression
`distinction, reflects the fact that “copyright assures authors the right to their original expression,
`but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and in