`
`
`
`
`Joseph John Stevens (CA Bar No. 242495)
`jstevens@pattersonsheridan.com
`
`Patterson + Sheridan, LLP
`50 W. San Fernando Street, Suite 250
`San Jose, CA 95113
`Tel: 650-384-4418
`Fax: 650-330-2314
`
`B. Todd Patterson (pro hac vice)
`tpatterson@pattersonsheridan.com
`John A. Yates (pro hac vice)
`jyates@pattersonsheridan.com
`Craig Depew (pro hac vice)
`cdepew@pattersonsheridan.com
`Kyrie K. Cameron (pro hac vice)
`kcameron@pattersonsheridan.com
`Edgar N. Gonzalez (pro hac vice)
`egonzalez@pattersonsheridan.com
`Joshua H. Park (pro hac vice)
`jpark@pattersonsheridan.com
`
`Patterson + Sheridan, LLP
`24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
`Houston, Texas 77030
`Tel: 713-623-4844
`Fax: 713-623-4846
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Cub Club Investment, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC,
`
`Case No.: Case No. 5:21-cv-06948-LHK
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S RENEWED
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`Date:
`
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`
`
`
`January 27, 2022
`1:30 PM
`8 – 4th Floor
`Honorable Lucy H. Koh
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES....................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS .......................................................................... 2
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`CCI Has Sufficiently Stated a Claim for Copyright Infringement ........................ 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`CCI’s Complaint Sufficiently Alleges Ownership of its
`Valid Copyrights ........................................................................................ 6
`
`CCI Has Sufficiently Alleged Copying of the Original and
`Protected Elements of its Registered Copyrights....................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`Even Under the “Extrinsic Test,” CCI Has Shown Substantial
`Similarity or Virtual Identity ............................................................................... 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`CCI’s Copyrighted Works Are More Than an “Idea” ............................. 11
`
`Apple Has Sought to Copyright These Same Expressions ...................... 13
`
`Apple Inappropriately “Filters Out” Too Many of CCI’s
`Original, Protectable Copyright Elements ............................................... 13
`
`The Original Combination of Elements of CCI’s
`Copyrights are Still Entitled to Protection ............................................... 16
`
`C.
`
`CCI Has Sufficiently Pled a Claim for Trade Dress Infringement ...................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`CCI Has Sufficiently Defined its Trade Dress ......................................... 17
`
`CCI Has Alleged Its Trade Dress is Nonfunctional ................................. 19
`
`CCI Has Alleged Secondary Meaning ..................................................... 21
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`CCI’s State Law Claims Are Not Preempted ...................................................... 24
`
`In the Alternative, the Court Should Grant CCI Leave to Amend its
`Complaint ............................................................................................................. 24
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`i
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.,
`
`890 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................ 17
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Arcsoft, Inc. v. Cyberlink Corp.,
`
`153 F. Supp. 3d 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................... 17, 18
`
`Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm’t Inc.,
`
`581 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 4, 5
`
`Atl. Rec. Corp. v. Serrano,
` No. 07-CV-1824-W-JMA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95203 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 28,
`2007) ....................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Aurora World, Inc. v. TY Inc.,
`
`719 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................................ 21
`
`Autodesk, Inc. v. Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corp.,
` No. C 08-04397, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109800 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2008) ...................... 21
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. 545 (2007) ...................................................................................................... 4, 5, 10
`
`BLT Rest. Grp., LLC v. Tourondel,
` No. 10-6488, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81348 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2011) ............................... 20
`
`Blumenthal Distrib., Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc.,
`
`963 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................ 20
`
`Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.,
`
`297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`Clamp Mfg. Co. v. Enco Mfg. Co.,
`
`870 F.2d 512 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................ 23
`
`Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc.,
`
`251 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack,
` No. 15-CV-01590, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121629 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) ...................... 5
`
`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
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Del Madera Properties v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc.,
`
`820 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Fortune Dynamic, Inc.,
` No. CV 15-769 PSG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188274 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2015) ........... 20, 21
`
`Disc Golf Ass’n, Inc. v. Champion Discs,
`
`158 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`Dream Games of Ariz., Inc. v. PC Onsite,
`
`
`
`561 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.,
`
`225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................... 7, 12
`
`Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) .................................................................................................... 5, 11, 16
`
`First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc.,
`
`809 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1987) .............................................................................................. 23
`
`Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp.,
`
`108 F.3d 246 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`Global Manufacturing Grp., LLC v. Gadget Universe.Com,
`
`417 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (S.D. Cal. 2006) ................................................................................. 21
`
`Gorski v. Gymboree Corporation,
` No. 5:14-cv-01314-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97816 (N.D. Cal. July 16,
`2014) ........................................................................................................................... 5, 10, 25
`
`Hall v. Swift,
` No. CV 17-6882-MWF, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165214 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2,
`2020) ..................................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Iditasport Alaska v. Merchant,
` No. 3:18-cv-0068-HRH, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156199 (Dist. Alaska Sept.
`13, 2018) ............................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Int’l Diamond Importers, Inc. v. Oriental Gemco (N.Y.), Inc.,
`
`64 F. Supp. 3d 494 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)..................................................................................... 20
`
`Johnson v. Lewis, No. LA CV17-01877 JAK (Ex), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`238312 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2018) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`L.A. Printex Indus. v. Aeropostale, Inc.,
`
`676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc.,
`
`448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................................. 24
`
`Leapers, Inc. v. SMTS, LLC,
` No. 14-CV-12290, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140622 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 3, 2014) ................... 20
`
`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
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Lopez v. Smith,
`
`203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................... 5, 25
`
`Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
`
`519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`Mattel Int’l v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`
`616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Mazer v. Stein,
`347 U.S. 201 (1954), superseded by Copyright Act of 1976 ................................................ 11
`
`
`Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr.,
`
`521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`Metcalf v. Bocho,
`294 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore v. Led
`
`Leppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 5, 7, 16
`
`Micro Star v. Formgen Inc.,
`
`154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Millennium Labs. Inc. v. Ameritox, Ltd.,
`
`817 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods.,
`
`454 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`Morton v. Rank America, Inc.,
`
`812 F.Supp. 1062 (C.D. Cal. 1993) ...................................................................................... 21
`
`Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC,
` No. 20-cv-04556, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174997 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020) ...................... 19
`
`PaperCutter, Inc. v. Fay’s Drug Co.,
`
`900 F.2d 558 (2d Cir. 1990).................................................................................................. 22
`
`Qualitex Co. v Jacobson Prods. Co.,
`
`514 U.S. 159 (1995) .............................................................................................................. 19
`
`Rassamni v. Fresno Auto Spa, Inc.,
`
`365 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (E.D. Cal. 2019)................................................................................. 13
`
`Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc.,
`883 F.3d 1111, 1123 (9th Cir. 2018), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore
`
`v. Led Leppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 8
`
`Satava v. Lowry,
`
`323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Seacalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr. Mach. Co.,
`668 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2012), abrogated on other grounds by SunEarth, Inc. v.
`
`Sun Earth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) ........................... 19, 20
`
`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
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`Shaw v. Lindheim,
`919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore v. Led
`
`Leppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................ 6
`
`Solid Host, NL v. Namecheap, Inc.,
`
`652 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................................ 22
`
`Spry Fox LLC v. LOLApps Inc.,
` No. C12-147RAJ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153863 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 18,
`2012) ....................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc.,
`
`159 F.3d 739 (2d. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................. 15
`
`U.S. v. Redwood City,
`
`640 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C & J Wear, Inc.,
`
`630 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Walls v. Uniradio Corp.,
` No. 16cv242-WQH-JLB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1035 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3,
`2017) ..................................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Washoutpan.com v. Hd Supply Const. Supply Ltd.,
` No. 19-cv-00494, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231695 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019) ...................... 19
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) ...................................................................................................................... 11
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ........................................................................................................................ 7
`
`STATUTES
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a) .............................................................................................................. 10, 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)........................................................................................................ passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a) .................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 7 of 31
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`Plaintiff, Cub Club Investment LLC (“CCI”) respectfully submits this Memorandum and
`
`
`
`
`
`Points of Authority in support of its Response in Opposition to Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”)
`
`Renewed Motion to Dismiss CCI’s Original Complaint.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple’s attack on CCI’s Complaint is a baseless attempt to prematurely adjudicate the
`
`merits of CCI’s well-pled claims for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and
`
`associated trade dress common law claims. Contrary to Apple’s assertions, CCI is not seeking to
`
`monopolize “an exclusive right over the general concept and practice of applying different skin
`
`tones to emoji.” Dkt. 54, p. 9. Instead, CCI seeks to protect its creative expression of unique and
`
`distinctive elements within its iDiversicons® application and emoji. Those distinctive and
`
`protectable elements have been blatantly copied by Apple ever since Mrs. Katrina Parrott, the
`
`owner and founder of CCI and the iDiversicons® application and emoji, met with and showed
`
`Apple her iDiversicons® emoji in 2014. The law protects both these individual elements and
`
`overall selection and combination of CCI and Mrs. Parrott’s iDiversicons® emoji against such
`
`flagrant misappropriation. Apple’s claim that these are unprotectable ideas is disingenuous as well
`
`as cynical, as Apple has sought to copyright these same expressions themselves.
`
`Accordingly, Apple’s motion to dismiss CCI’s copyright infringement claim must fail
`
`because CCI has sufficiently stated its claim for copyright infringement by providing well-
`
`supported allegations of CCI’s ownership of the asserted registered copyrights, Apple’s access to
`
`CCI’s copyrighted works, and the substantial similarity between CCI’s copyrighted works and
`
`Apple’s “diverse emoji.” Moreover, Apple’s Renewed Motion mischaracterizes CCI’s protected
`
`copyrights as a mere “idea,” attempts to improperly filter out protectable elements of CCI’s
`
`copyrighted works, and, conveniently, and fatally, ignores CCI’s Complaint’s identification of
`
`several protectable features of CCI’s iDiversicons® emoji that are substantially similar to Apple’s
`
`“diverse emoji.”
`
`
`
`Similarly, Apple’s motion to dismiss CCI’s Lanham Act claim fails because CCI
`
`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
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`adequately alleges infringement of its protectable Trade Dress, which includes nonfunctional
`
`features that have acquired the requisite secondary meaning in the marketplace. And finally,
`
`Apple’s motion as to CCI’s common law claims for unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and
`
`misappropriation fails because Apple’s arguments rely entirely on the notion that the Copyright
`
`Act preempts each claim. However, as set forth below, each of CCI’s common law claims survives
`
`preemption, and therefore clearly survives Apple’s challenge. Accordingly, Apple’s Renewed
`
`Motion to Dismiss should be denied in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Whether CCI sufficiently stated a claim for copyright infringement where its
`
`Complaint (1) alleges ownership of the seven copyright registrations asserted by CCI, and
`
`(2) includes numerous allegations and comparisons showing the substantial similarity of
`
`protectable expressive elements between CCI’s copyrights and Apple’s emoji.
`
`2.
`
`Whether CCI sufficiently stated a claim for trade dress infringement where it
`
`particularly defined and identified its trade dress, and the Complaint, taken as a whole, provides
`
`enough factual support to suggest CCI’s trade dress has acquired secondary meaning.
`
`3.
`
`Whether CCI’s copyright cause of action preempts its common law claims for
`
`misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition, each of which are premised on a
`
`viable trade dress infringement claim and thus not preempted by the Copyright Act.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`
`This case is about emoji. More specifically, this case is about the original, creative
`
`expressions developed by CCI and Mrs. Katrina A. Parrott to bring racial diversity into the realm
`
`of digital communications, and CCI’s Trade Dress that represents the overall look and feel of its
`
`iDiversicons® application.
`
`Today, emoji have taken on a critical role of in modern digital communications. Emoji,
`
`although typically simple and pictographic in nature, have taken on meanings, representations, and
`
`expressions in ways that have reshaped the very way people communicate with and express oneself
`
`with one another. Prior to the development and release of the iDiversicons® emoji and application
`
`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
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`(and years before the universal adoption of “diverse emoji” standards by the Unicode Consortium),
`
`however, emoji were limited in terms of race or color. Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶ 7.
`
`Spurred by her daughter’s thought of having emoji that “looked like the person sending
`
`them,” Mrs. Katrina A. Parrott started CCI to develop what later came to be known as the
`
`iDiversicons® emoji and application, which, through its own creative and original expressions,
`
`brought racial diversity, and therefore the ability to express oneself more accurately and
`
`thoughtfully, to the realm of digital communications. Id. The iDiversicons® emoji were duly
`
`registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on July 13, 2013. Id. ¶ 9.
`
`Thereafter, CCI and Mrs. Parrott launched the iDiversicons® application on the Apple App
`
`Store on October 13, 2013, which allowed users to use iDiversicons® emoji in their digital
`
`communications. Id. ¶ 8. Although the iDiversicons® application was the first (and only)
`
`application that offered diverse emoji to the public in 2013, Mrs. Parrott sought to further influence
`
`and expand the representation of minorities in emoji. Accordingly, Mrs. Parrott joined the Unicode
`
`Technical Committee (“UTC”) and began attending UTC meetings with the hopes of influencing
`
`the UTC to address the issue of diversity in digital communications. Id. ¶ 11. To such end, Mrs.
`
`Parrott submitted technical papers presenting her iDiversicons® application and emoji to the UTC
`
`committee members, which included representatives of Apple, as a solution to the issue of
`
`diversity in digital communications. Id. ¶¶ 11-14.
`
`After a May 2014 UTC meeting, Mrs. Parrott finally met one of Apple’s UTC
`
`representatives, Senior Software Engineer Peter Edberg. Id. ¶¶ 22. Over a period of more than
`
`five months, Mr. Edberg communicated with Mrs. Parrott regarding the iDiversicons® emoji and
`
`application (id. ¶ 26), coordinated meetings with Ms. Cecil Vigil, Apple’s Senior Director for
`
`Frameworks and Fonts (id. ¶ 27), accessed and downloaded iDiversicons® emoji from a thumb
`
`drive provided by Mrs. Parrott, which were shared with Mr. Edberg’s design team and other Apple
`
`employees (id. ¶¶ 29, 30, 32, 34, 35), and seemingly emphasized a potential partnership between
`
`CCI and Apple (id. ¶ 36). Furthermore, in her attempts to work with Apple on diverse emoji,
`
`Mrs. Parrott sent three letters to Apple CEO Tim Cook regarding the issue of diversity and
`
`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
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`inclusion in emoji and information regarding CCI’s iDiversicons® emoji and application. Id. ¶¶
`
`23, 24, 25 (email), 44.
`
`However, on October 23, 2014, Mr. Edberg informed Mrs. Parrott that there would be no
`
`partnership between CCI and Apple, and that Apple would proceed with developing its own
`
`diverse emoji and keyboard. A few months later, on April 9, 2015, Apple released its first diverse
`
`emoji using CCI’s five skin tone keyboard modifier pallet. Id. After seeing Apple’s release, and
`
`the world’s celebration, of its first “diverse emoji,” Mrs. Parrott was heartbroken. After
`
`developing a relationship with Apple, wherein Apple’s representatives seemingly promised or
`
`promoted a business relationship between CCI and Apple to acknowledge and promote Mrs.
`
`Parrott’s development and implementation of “diverse emoji,” Apple had moved on. Id. ¶¶ 36,
`
`42. Accordingly, CCI was forced to bring this lawsuit to protect the original, expressive creations
`
`and unique, distinctive, and non-functional trade dress developed by CCI and Mrs. Parrott, which
`
`were deliberately and intentionally copied by Apple.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim for
`
`relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim
`
`is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the
`
`reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but
`
`it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. In determining
`
`plausibility, the court must “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the
`
`pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine
`
`Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Determining the facial plauisiblity of a claim is a
`
`“context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
`
`common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Stated differently,
`
`“[d]ismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal
`
`theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack,
`
`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
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`15-CV-01590, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121629, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) (quoting Mendiondo
`
`v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2004)).
`
`Finally, if a court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, leave to amend should be granted unless
`
`the pleading cannot possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
`
`1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only in “extraordinary” cases. Atl. Rec.
`
`Corp. v. Serrano, No. 07-CV-1824-W-JMA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95203, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec.
`
`28, 2007) (citing U.S. v. Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981)); Gilligan v. Jamco Dev.
`
`Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997) (motions to dismiss are “viewed with disfavor” and are
`
`to be granted rarely). The court must “assume the truth of all the complaint’s factual allegations
`
`and credit all reasonable inferences arising from its allegations.” Spry Fox LLC v. LOLApps Inc.,
`
`No. C12-147RAJ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153863, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 18, 2012). When a
`
`plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to state a claim, as CCI has done here, “its complaint survives
`
`dismissal as long as there is ‘any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint’ that
`
`would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Id. at *2 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 568 and Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. at 679).
`
`A.
`
`CCI Has Sufficiently Stated a Claim for Copyright Infringement
`
`“To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege ‘(1) ownership of a
`
`valid copyright [in a work], and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.’”
`
`Gorski v. Gymboree Corporation, No. 5:14-cv-01314-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97816, at *9
`
`(N.D. Cal. July 16, 2014) (quoting Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361
`
`(1991)); Metcalf v. Bocho, 294 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by
`
`Skidmore v. Led Leppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (relating to the inverse ratio rule).
`
`Copying may be established by showing that a defendant had access to the copyrighted work and
`
`that there is a substantial similarity between the two works. Metcalf, 294 F.3d at 1072.
`
`Here, the question raised by Apple in its Renewed Motion to Dismiss is whether CCI has
`
`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
`
`CUB CLUB INVESTMENT, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`adequately alleged substantial similarity between the protectable elements of CCI’s iDiversicons®
`
`emoji and Apple’s “diverse emoji.” However, the Ninth Circuit has warned that a dismissal is
`
`“not highly favored on questions of substantial similarity in copyright cases.” Shaw v. Lindheim,
`
`919 F.2d 1353, 1355 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Skidmore v. Led Leppelin,
`
`952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (relating to the inverse ratio rule). Thus, Apple’s Renewed Motion
`
`to Dismiss must be denied if CCI’s Complaint identifies any set of “articulable similarities”
`
`between “specific expressive elements” of the copyrighted work and the accused work. L.A.
`
`Printex Indus. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841, 848 (9th Cir. 2012).
`
`On its face, CCI’s Complaint readily meets this standard. As discussed further below,
`
`CCI’s Complaint states (1) that CCI owns seven registered copyrights covering its iDiversicons®
`
`emoji, (2) that Apple had access to its iDiversicons® emoji, and (3) that substantial similarities
`
`exist between the protectable, expressive elements of Apple’s emoji and CCI’s copyrighted works.
`
`Such elements include the shape and stylistic renderings of the emoji, the unique and original color
`
`selections of the emoji, the specific contours and shading of the emoji, and the arrangement of the
`
`emoji with one another. Accordingly, because CCI has sufficiently stated a claim for copyright
`
`infringement, Apple’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
`
`1. CCI’s Complaint Sufficiently Alleges Ownership of its Valid Copyrights
`
`As mentioned above, CCI’s Complaint sufficiently alleged ownership of United States
`
`Copyright Registrations Nos. VAu 001-204-290, VAu 001-186-920, VAu 001-152-200, VUA
`
`001-152-192, VAu 001-180-102, and VAu 001-152-204 (collectively, “CCI’s Copyrighted
`
`Works”). See, e.g., Dkt. 1, ¶ 9 (“CCI is the sole owner and proprietor of all rights, title, and interest
`
`in and to the copyrights in the Works”); ¶ 60 (“CCI owns valid copyrights in the Works at issue in
`
`this case”); ¶ 61 (“CCI registered the Works in this case with the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant
`
`to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)”); ¶ 62 (“[t]he U.S. Copyright issued valid Certificates of Registration to
`
`CCI for the seven (7) registered Works…”); ¶ 63 (“[t]he Works are original, creative works and
`
`copyrightable subject matter