Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 31, 2022
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
A new Supreme Court decision shows us that making an innocent mistake of fact or law when filing an application for copyright registration does not automatically mean that you will lose your intellectual property rights. In Unicolors Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a copyright holder could still pursue a copyright infringement action even though it included inaccurate information in its application. “Lack of knowledge of either fact or law can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the Court’s 6-3 decision.
Unicolors, Inc., which owns copyrights in various fabric designs, filed a copyright infringement action against H&M Hennes & Mauritz (H&M). A jury found in favor of Unicolors. H&M sought judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Unicolors could not maintain an infringement suit because Unicolors knowingly included inaccurate information on its registration application, rendering its copyright registration invalid.
The alleged inaccuracy stemmed from Unicolors having filed a single application seeking registration for 31 separate works despite a Copyright Office regulation that provides that a single application may cover multiple works only if they were “included in the same unit of publication.” H&M maintained that Unicolors failed to satisfy this requirement because Unicolors had initially made some of the 31 designs available for sale exclusively to certain customers while offering the rest to the general public.
The District Court determined that because Unicolors did not know when it filed its application that it had failed to satisfy the “single unit of publication” requirement, Unicolors’ copyright registration remained valid by operation of the safe harbor provision provided under 17 U.S.C. § 411(b). It provides that a certificate of registration is valid “regardless of whether the certificate contains any inaccurate information, unless— (A) the inaccurate information was included on the application for copyright registration with knowledge that it was inaccurate; and (B) the inaccuracy of the information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration.”
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that it did not matter whether Unicolors was aware that it had failed to satisfy the single unit of publication requirement, because the safe harbor excuses only good-faith mistakes of fact, not law. Unicolors had known the relevant facts, so its knowledge of the law (or lack thereof ) was irrelevant, according to the federal appeals court.
The Supreme Court reversed. According to the majority, § 411(b) excuses inaccuracies that were the result of an innocent mistake of fact or law. “In our view, however, §411(b) does not distinguish between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact. Lack of knowledge of either fact or law can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration,” Justice Breyer wrote.
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that nothing in §411(b)(1)(A) suggests that the safe harbor applies differently simply because an applicant made a mistake of law as opposed to a mistake of fact. It also found that nearby statutory provisions help confirm that “knowledge” refers to knowledge of the law, as well as the facts, noting that registration applications call for information that requires both legal and factual knowledge.
“Inaccurate information in a registration is therefore equally (or more) likely to arise from a mistake of law as a mistake of fact. That is especially true because applicants include novelists, poets, painters, designers, and others without legal training,” Justice Breyer wrote. “Nothing in the statutory language suggests that Congress wanted to forgive those applicants’ factual but not their (often esoteric) legal mistakes.”
The Court also cited legislative history indicating that Congress enacted §411(b) to make it easier, not more difficult, for nonlawyers to obtain valid copyright registrations. “Given this history, it would make no sense if §411(b) left copyright registrations exposed to invalidation based on applicants’ good-faith misunderstandings of the details of copyright law,” Breyer said.
Based on the above, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.
The Supreme Court’s decision is good news for copyright holders that are filing for registrations on their own, and may inadvertently make errors. Of course, this does not mean that such filers should not use their best efforts to get it right the first time. The Copyright Office issues various tutorials regarding the eCO (electronic Copyright Office) registration forms, as well as for each separate specialized form (i.e., PA, SR, TX, VA, etc.) that walk the filer through the form step-by-step, as well as explain what needs to be submitted (and how) as the “deposit material.” As the Supreme Court made clear in its decision, courts must look at all of the circumstances to determine whether the mistake was truly innocent. The Court also emphasized that evidence of willful blindness may remove a copyright holder from the protection of the safe harbor.
Given the complexities of the US Copyright Act, we encourage rights holders to work with experienced intellectual property counsel. At Scarinci Hollenbeck, our experienced intellectual property attorneys can walk you through the copyright registration process and help ensure that your rights are protected from inception. If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Jill Michael, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Intellectual property valuation determines the monetary value of a business’s IP assets, and it drives outcomes in licensing deals, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, financing, and ownership disputes. The most valuable assets of a business are often the things that cannot be seen or touched: a proprietary process, a copyrighted work, brand recognition, or the […]
Author: Jay McDaniel

For New Jersey data center owners and operators, a service agreement may look routine when it is signed. The network is functioning, the vendor is meeting its installation schedule, and the parties have agreed on pricing and performance specifications. The provisions that seem most important at that stage are often the technical ones. That changes […]
Author: George McGowan

The Fort Monmouth redevelopment has entered its execution phase, and it is repositioning the broader Monmouth County real estate market. When Netflix and the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Authority closed on the 292-acre Mega Parcel in December 2025, the transaction did more than hand over a deed. It marked the moment Fort Monmouth stopped being […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Owning a residential rental property in New Jersey involves more than finding tenants and collecting rent. Property owners must comply with a combination of state laws, municipal ordinances, building and housing codes, and zoning and land use regulations. These requirements can affect everything from the number of dwelling units permitted at a property to whether […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

The five most common real estate disputes are breach of contract claims, landlord-tenant conflicts, zoning and land use disagreements, construction claims, and boundary disputes. Understanding why each arises, and taking preventive steps early, can help property owners, tenants, developers, and investors avoid costly litigation. Key Takeaways: Real estate transactions are complex endeavors involving numerous parties […]
Author: Paul Grossman

Once a child turns 18, parents lose the automatic legal authority to make medical and financial decisions on their behalf, even if the child still lives at home or remains on the family’s insurance. Three documents close that gap: a durable power of attorney, a health care proxy or directive, and a HIPAA authorization. For […]
Author: George McGowan
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!