Von Erickson v. Target — Blood-Drip Necklace Copyright Claim Must Go to a Jury

Background

Jewelry designer Peter Erickson created a red “Large Blood Drip Necklace” in 2009 and later assigned its registered copyright to Von Erickson Laboratories. Target had faced an earlier lawsuit over a different necklace resembling the same design. Beginning in 2021, Target sold a three-pack of chokers supplied by Ballet Group that included another red, blood-drip necklace.

Von Erickson sued Target and Ballet for copyright infringement and moved for summary judgment on liability, willfulness, statutory damages, and prevailing-party status. The defendants maintained that Ballet independently created the accused design.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Evelyn Padin held that Von Erickson owns a valid copyright in the registered necklace. Its timely registration supplied prima facie evidence of validity, and the defendants did not rebut that presumption. The court therefore treated the necklace’s creation, registration, assignment, recordation, and Von Erickson’s ownership as established facts under Rule 56(g).

But the court denied summary judgment on infringement because actual copying remained disputed. The necklace’s years of online availability, trade-show display, and sales permitted an inference that the defendants could have encountered it, but did not compel that conclusion. Von Erickson offered no analytics, communications, or testimony placing the work before Ballet’s designer or suppliers.

The designs also were not so indisputably alike that striking similarity eliminated the possibility of independent creation. The defendants identified differences in the drips’ shape, length, width, spacing, sharpness, and thickness. A jury could credit that account, so the court did not decide whether the accused necklace materially appropriated protected expression.

Because liability remained unresolved, the court also declined to find willfulness or award statutory damages. Target’s awareness of the earlier dispute could support an inference of knowledge, but it did not compel a finding that either defendant knowingly or recklessly infringed. The case was referred to mediation.

Key Takeaways

• A timely copyright registration can establish ownership at summary judgment when the defendant offers no evidence rebutting validity.
• Longstanding internet availability may permit, but does not necessarily compel, a finding that an accused designer had access to a work.
• Striking similarity requires enough resemblance to negate a reasonable possibility of independent creation, a higher threshold than ordinary substantial similarity.
• Even prior notice of a copyrighted design does not establish willfulness as a matter of law when copying and the defendants’ state of mind remain disputed.

Why It Matters

The ruling separates copyright ownership from proof that a defendant actually copied the work. Registration resolved the first issue, but visually similar consumer products and broad online exposure were not enough to remove the second from the jury. Designers seeking early judgment need evidence connecting the accused creator to the protected work, or similarities so compelling that independent creation is not reasonably possible.

Full Opinion