DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiff Rosehoff, Ltd., (“Rosehoff”) seeks a declaratory judgment against Defendants, stating that Defendants do not have trade dress rights in a particular plastic bottle to hold a fuel-enhancement product, or a copyright on the particular label for that product. Before this Court is Rosehoff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket No. 55), and its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 83). For the following reasons, Rosehoff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and its motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot. II. BACKGROUND Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are not disputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. This Court takes the facts in the light most favorable to Defendants, the non-moving parties. See Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2016) (at summary judgment, a court “views the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to…the non-moving party”). Cataclean is a “chemical compound fuel-enhancement product that cleans automobile catalytic converters.” (Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts, Docket No. 55-2, 5.) Rosehoff and its subsidiary, System Products UK, Ltd. (“SPUK”), own the rights to the Cataclean fuel-enhancement product, and Rosehoff holds the U.S. Trademark Registration for the Cataclean trademark. (Docket No. 55-2,
6-7; Docket No. 57-1, 6.) In 2008, Russ Baigent, a principal of Rosehoff, along with defendants Gordon Gannon and Gregory Gannon, formed non-party Cataclean Americas LLC (“CAL”) to distribute the Cataclean product in North America. (See Docket No. 55-2, 11; Docket No. 55-37 at 1; Docket No. 57-2 at 52.) Also in 2008, SPUK entered into a licensing agreement with CAL (“the SPUK license”), allowing CAL to sell the Cataclean product in North America. (Docket No. 55-11 at pp. 2-17.) From 2008 to either 2010 or 2011, CAL sold Cataclean in an aluminum bottle manufactured by the Exal corporation (“the Exal bottle”). (Docket No. 55-2, 5.) The Exal bottle had a long neck, cylindrical base, and “dual-step” design at the base of the neck. (Id., 23.) In July 2010, Gregory Gannon, in consultation with others affiliated with CAL, and apparently in response to concerns about delivery, denting, and leaking of the Exal bottle, began to seek a new supplier for the bottle. (Docket No. 55-22 at p. 2.) In a series of emails, he corresponded with a manufacturer in China to have a new bottle made.1 After back-and-forth emails regarding the bottle design, the Chinese manufacturer sent a bottle sample to Gregory Gannon. Gannon forwarded this sample to Hugh Collins, a principal of Rosehoff, in August 2010. (Docket No. 57-2 at 39.) The parties dispute whether this bottle sample was an exact copy of the Exal bottle or a new design created by Gregory Gannon. Gannon asked the Chinese manufacturer to try to come “closer to the image of our existing bottle.” (Docket No. 55-21 at p. 6) At the same time, Gannon asserts in his affidavit that he made a “critical design modification” to the Exal bottle and states that the bottle sample he ultimately received from China was different from the Exal bottle. (Gregory Gannon affidavit, Docket No. 57-2 at
