The Copyright Battle Over Unicorn Party Dresses

The Copyright Claims Board has been operating for over two years now. Since then, it has handled a wide array of bizarre and interesting copyright cases.
Whether it’s a documentary about Andrew Dice Clay, a flight cockpit recorder or a battle over a literal dumpster fire, the CCB has seen its share of unusual claims.
Now, we can add another: A case over unicorn party dresses.
But, as with the other cases mentioned above, while the topic may seem bizarre, the case itself isn’t. It delves into various copyright issues and deals with a familiar refrain for many creators: overseas infringement making its way back to the United States.
As such, it’s a case well worth examining and watching. Especially if you are a creator dealing with overseas infringement.
Background of the Case
Artist Wendy Sloan filed the case in September 2023. She alleged that Just For Littles LLC (JFL), a company that sells children’s dresses, infringed on her Leaping Unicorns pattern.
The two sides largely agree on most of the case’s facts. Sloan began working on the pattern in late 2016 and completed and registered the work by April 2017. Tami Enz, the owner of JFL, opened her company in 2019 and, at some point, was selling dresses that featured the pattern.
In November 2022, Sloan discovered the dresses using an image search. To be clear, Sloan licenses her patterns using Spoonflower; however, she had no record of this company making any purchases.
After Sloan contacted JFL, Enz claimed that she purchased the dresses from a supplier in China and was told the company had a license for the pattern. Sloan followed up and asked for the name of the supplier. However, according to Sloan, she never received the information.
After that, the two sides disagree on almost everything. This includes when the dresses were first sold, how many were bought and whether the pattern is still used on JFL’s social media.
Sloan accuses Enz of withholding data. This includes providing incomplete invoices, not providing proper sales figures, and blocking her from JFL’s Facebook page rather than removing all infringing material.
Though Enz points the finger at a company named Tuance E-Commerce Firm, Sloan argues there were red flags that should have alerted Enz to the company’s infringing nature. This includes many trademarked characters that were “obviously” infringing.
Sloan is seeking $4131 in damages. This includes estimated profits from the sale of the dresses and estimated royalties that she missed out on. That does not include “the value of marketing materials and social media campaigns” that used the image.
A Very Frustrating Case
The case is frustrating to parse. Of the 57 documents submitted to the CCB, only one is from JFL: the claim response, which includes three images.
In that response, Enz said they operated in “good faith” and went “above and beyond” for Sloan. She says she removed the products and images to the best of her ability and no longer does business with the Tuance E-Commerce Firm.
However, Sloan claims that Enz has not provided all the requested information. Sloan says that the invoices provided do not have addresses or dates. As such, she can’t verify whether Tuance E-Commerce Firm is an infringer or when it occurred. She also says she hasn’t been provided a complete sales total, even though JFL uses Shopify and can do so easily.
As such, Sloan had to estimate the number of dresses sold. She pieced this together by looking at the invoices she was provided, social media posts and other information.
Ultimately, I think the challenges in this case come down to a respondent who is inexperienced with these issues. Enz may well be trying her best. However, she struggles to provide the needed information and is making questionable decisions, such as blocking Sloan from the Facebook page.
What the Law Says
Unfortunately for JFL, ignorance is not a defense to copyright infringement claims. How aware she was or should have been may play a role in the damages awarded, but they will likely face some damages.
The difficult decision for the CCB will likely be how much damages to award.
On one hand, Enz presents herself as a wholly innocent infringer. She claims to have bought the dresses in good faith, had no idea that any of them were infringing, and worked quickly to remove the infringements when notified.
Conversely, Sloan says Enz ignored red flags and did not work quickly to remove infringing material. She also claims JFL has failed to provide a full accounting of the dresses sold or the company from which they bought them.
Given the CCB’s past ruling on innocent infringers, it’s unlikely to rule that Enz is one. Sloan’s Spoonflower page has several copyright notices, and there’s not much doubt that Enz “had access” to it. That doesn’t mean Enz visited or was aware of the page; it’s just that she could have.
In short, proving oneself to be an innocent infringer is a high bar. However, it doesn’t change the calculus much. An innocent infringer ruling would set the minimum damages to $200 instead of $750. That’s it.
Given the damages at stake, they’re likely to be higher than $750, no matter what. The CCB must answer how much higher.
Bottom Line
In the end, the CCB has an unenviable task. It has to parse all the documentation provided and determine the appropriate action. It won’t be easy.
However, I have to agree with Sloan that the documentation provided by JFL is incomplete. Providing full information about the supplier and a complete account of all the dresses sold should be relatively straightforward. Not having done so, for whatever reason, may push the CCB to favor Sloan’s interpretation of events.
Sloan seeks actual damages, and her estimate seems reasonable (at least with our current information). That doesn’t mean the CCB will follow her suggestions, but unless JFL can provide more evidence, there’s a good chance that’s the direction things will go.
Still, a lot of evidence has been filed in this case. The CCB has a lot of work ahead of it in trying to parse what is fair.
However, as we’ve seen before, I have no doubts that it will do an excellent job.
Want to Reuse or Republish this Content?
If you want to feature this article in your site, classroom or elsewhere, just let us know! We usually grant permission within 24 hours.