throbber
Case 5:21-cv-06948-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/13/21 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket