Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 21 Filed 04/05/23 Page 14 of 15
the Copyright Office’s interpretation of language in Section 111 of the Copyright Act); see also Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., 739 F.3d 446, 449 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding Copyright Office opinion letter and Compendium interpreting language in section 101 of Copyright Act persuasive); Marascalco v. Fantasy, Inc., 953 F.2d 469, 473 (9th Cir. 1991) (giving deference to Copyright Office’s interpretation of section 304 of the Copyright Act). Courts have highlighted the specific importance of deference in the context of registration decisions, in light of the Copyright Office’s expertise. Dkt. 17 at 12; see also OddzOn, 924 F.2d 346 at 348, 350.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Office’s refusal to register the Work was soundly and rationally based on settled law, and was not arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court grant Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.[1]
- ↑ Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ argument that the Court does not have the authority to order the Copyright Office to register the Work. See Dkt. 17 at 26–27. If the Court were to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff has conceded that the appropriate remedy would be renewed consideration of the copyrightability of the Work.
10
