BNI Enterprises, Inc. v. Holmes
BNI Enterprises, Inc. v. Holmes
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Appellant BNI Enterprises, Inc. (BNI) appeals the district court’s summary judgment to appellee Kelli Holmes (Holmes).
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them in detail.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Government of Guam v. United States, 179 F.3d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1017, 120 S.Ct. 1416, 146 L.Ed.2d 309 (2000). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine the presence of any issues of material fact. See Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994).
A plaintiff bringing a claim for copyright infringement must demonstrate “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). The first element is not at issue in this case; thus, the only question is whether BNI can demonstrate a triable issue of fact whether Holmes “cop[ied] anything that was ‘original’ to” BNI. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282.
In order to prove copyright infringement, BNI must establish that Holmes “had ‘access’ to the plaintiffs work and that the two works are ‘substantially similar.’ ” See, e.g., Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2000).
With respect to BNI’s brochures and pamphlets, it is quite clear that Holmes’s materials are not a verbatim copy; on the contrary, Holmes’s materials embody distinctive themes and employ unique language. Whatever commonalities that do exist are no more than what “must unavoidably be produced by anyone who wishes to use and restate the unprotectable ideas contained in [BNI’s] work.” Three Boys Music, 212 F.3d at 489.
As regards BNI’s “contact spheres” diagram, which is arguably accorded a greater degree of copyright protection, BNI cannot raise a triable issue of fact on substantial similarity. First, Holmes has chosen the nomenclature “centers of influence” or “power partners”; BNI, by contrast, calls its model “contact spheres.” Second, unlike the BNI model,
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s summary judgment in Holmes’s favor is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. During the pendency of the proceedings, Holmes sought to invalidate Team’s LLC status and take responsibility for all of Team’s liabilities. Accordingly, and as noted by the district court, Holmes is the only proper defendant (and appellee) in this matter.
. BNI claims that this is a ‘‘direct copying” case and that it need not demonstrate a triable of issue of fact regarding substantial similarity. But "direct copying” requires evidence of actual physical copying, see Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1175 n. 49 (C.D.Cal. 2001), aff'd in part, dismissed in part, 90 Fed. Appx. 496 (9th Cir. 2004), or "similarities ... so striking that no other conclusion is possible.” M. Kramer Mfg. Co. v. Andrews, 783 F.2d 421, 446 (4th Cir. 1986). BNI, 6by contrast, only establishes Holmes's access to BNI’s materials and use of those materials in fashioning her own projects, and thus this case does not involve direct copying.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.