October Term 2021 · Docket 20-915

Does copyright fraud require subjective awareness of inaccuracy?

Unicolors argues the law requires subjective awareness of errors. H&M argues objective negligence suffices to void registration.

Official caption
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Rosenkranz argued the statute requires subjective awareness of inaccuracy.

    Mr. Stris argued the registration certificate confers litigation privileges.

    Mr. Rosenkranz argued the statute is clear and not ambiguous.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on the mental state required to prove copyright fraud. Unicolors seeks to preserve its registration despite alleged errors. H&M seeks to invalidate the registration based on those errors.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2021.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Unicolors wants the Court to require proof of subjective awareness of inaccuracy.

H&M wants the Court to allow objective negligence to void the registration.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Unicolors argues the statute requires subjective awareness of the specific inaccuracy.

H&M argues the statute allows invalidation based on objective inaccuracies.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked where the actual application resides in the record.

Justice Alito asked if showing designs to a person constitutes publication.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the standard for proving copyright fraud. It determines how easily registrations can be voided. It affects the stability of copyright litigation privileges. It impacts access to statutory damages and attorneys' fees.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON