This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Unicolors, the owner of copyrights in various fabric designs, fled a copyright infringement action against H&M.
The case came on certiorari from the Ninth Circuit (No. 20‑915), was argued on November 8 2021, and decided on February 24 2022.
The Supreme Court addressed whether a lack of knowledge of an inaccuracy in a copyright registration can excuse the inaccuracy under 17 U.S.C. § 411(b).
Background and question before the Court
Unicolors is the owner of copyrights in various fabric designs and had fled a copyright infringement suit by H&M.
According to E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Esq., on behalf of the Petitioner, the question presented is what state of mind a copyright infringer must prove to show that an applicant included inaccurate information “with knowledge that it was inaccurate.”
What each side argues
Petitioner (Unicolors)
According to E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Esq., on behalf of the Petitioner, the petitioner argues that the required knowledge element is the applicant’s subjective awareness of the inaccuracy.
Respondent (H&M)
H&M argues that Unicolors’ registration certificate is inaccurate because it attempted to register 31 separate works in a single application.
According to H&M, h&M asserts that the maxim “ignorance of the law is no excuse” forecloses the petitioner’s interpretation of § 411(b).
United States (Amicus)
According to Melissa N. Patterson, the United States, as amicus, supports the petitioner, arguing that the statute’s default rule preserves registration validity despite some inaccurate information.
What happened at oral argument
Counsel E. Joshua Rosenkranz appeared for the petitioner, Melissa N. Patterson for the United States as amicus, and Peter K. Stris for the respondent.
What the Court decided
The Court held that § 411(b) does not distinguish between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact; lack of knowledge of either can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration.
Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the “acknowledge” element of § 411(b)(1)(A) requires intent to defraud and that the Court misapplied Rule 14.1(a).
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 5b452508b9cfbce2f56d-r1-f2605ab1db6e533a.pdforal argument transcript
- f9bd57836e29ef8eeaf5-r1-fbba9e12b6e0b0b1.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.