MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company (“BHTBC”) sues Defendants Best Brands Consumer Products, Inc. and Best Brands Sales Company, LLC (collectively, “Best Brands”) for allegedly infringing its copyrights in Squeezamals, a line of stuffed toys. Best Brands now moves for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Best Brands’ motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND In 2017, an online contest was held seeking “cute stuffed animal designs for [an] up and coming product.” Dkt. 276 94. The parties dispute whether this contest was held by BHTBC or BHTBC’s CEO, David Socha. Id. They also dispute whether contest-winner Benson Tijo assigned his rights in the winning designs to BHTBC or Socha personally. Id. 99. In July of 2018, BHTBC registered copyrights in its stuffed toys with the U.S. Copyright Office, attaching pictures of the toys and describing them as sculptural works. See, e.g., Dkt. 117-3. The certificates stated that Benson Tijo was the copyrights’ author and that BHTBC had acquired the copyrights through written agreement. See, e.g., Dkt. 117-3 at 2, 10, 18, 26, 34. In April 2019, BHTBC brought this lawsuit against Best Brands for infringing its Squeezamals copyrights. Dkt. 1. After discovery closed, Best Brands requested a referral to the Register of Copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §411(b)(2), which requires courts to get the Register’s advice when a party alleges that a certificate of registration is inaccurate. Dkt. 68 at 3. This Court denied that request, finding that Best Brands had failed to allege any facts showing inaccuracies. Id. at 5-14. For example, Best Brands argued that the certificates were inaccurate because they listed Tijo, who had submitted two-dimensional designs, as the author of the three-dimensional copyrighted works. Id. at 6. This Court disagreed, explaining that “in a case involving sculptural reproduction of a two-dimensional design, authorship of the final sculptural work vests in the author of the underlying design” unless someone else exerted “creative control” over the sculptural work or added “new original copyrightable authorship.” Id. at 7 (citations omitted). Things then hit another snag. A company called GennComm, LLC (“GennComm”) contacted Best Brands, claiming that it had executed a licensing agreement with BHTBC in 2017 that implicated Squeezamals intellectual property rights. Dkt. 124 at 1, 3. In fact, BHTBC and GennComm were actively litigating two cases in California involving that agreement and Squeezamals: GennComm had sued BHTBC in state court, and BHTBC had sued GennComm in federal court. Id. at 3; Dkt. 222 at 2-3. Under the licensing agreement, GennComm gave BHTBC a non-exclusive right “to make, use and sell the subject matter of all patents and patent applications…filed on the ITEM.” Dkt. 266-4 at 3. The ITEM was described as follows: Pop Up Plush: Plush figure comprising of slow rising, kid safe, latex, polyurethane or other memory foam filler that has been cut or molded (e.g., machine, injection, additive printed), into the shape of a plush toy or other character. The exterior will be covered with a general plush material synthetic or natural that is sewn or wrapped around the sculpted memory foam. Provisional Patent Application No. 62508800 — Filed May 19, 2017. Id. at 22. As relevant here, the agreement also discussed copyrights: “All right, title and interest in and to all copyrights…embodying the ITEM, and all copyright…registrations based thereon…shall be owned exclusively by [GennComm]…and [BHTBC] shall have no interest in or claim to the ITEM or to any of the copyrights…associated therewith.” Id. at 6. BHTBC “hereby assigns to [GennComm] all copyrights…in ITEM.” Id. “All…copyrights…used in connection with the manufacture, sale or advertisement of the ITEM, shall be and remain the sole property of [BHTBC].” Id. at 8. BHTBC “agrees that it will, at any time upon request of [GennComm], assign, transfer, and convey to [GennComm]…all…copyright…in and to the ITEM which may be obtained by [BHTBC].” Id. at 7. After this licensing agreement was uncovered, Best Brands moved for sanctions. Dkt. 90. BHTBC protested that sanctions were unwarranted because the agreement concerned patents, not copyrights. Dkt. 124 at 18. Though this Court did not settle the scope of the licensing agreement, it granted Best Brands’ motion for sanctions, observing that the agreement “has some relation to Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights beyond patents.” Id. This Court also determined that GennComm was a necessary party to this litigation “because an evaluation of the standing arguments raised by [Best Brands] requires [the Court] to determine the rights and interests under the license agreement to which GennComm is a party.” Dkt. 113 at 12. So BHTBC amended its complaint, adding GennComm as a defendant and seeking a declaration that GennComm has no rights in Squeezamals. Dkt. 117
