• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Fross Zelnick

  • People
  • Focus
  • Services

    Find Your Lawyer

    Craig S. MendeJ. Asheton LemayNancy E. SabarraAndrew N. FredbeckAllison Strickland RickettsJames D. SilbersteinSarah MarmonDarra FrinoSherri N. DuitzAlexandra E. KochianCourtney B. ShierLeo KittayRobin N. BaydurcanCole S. MathewsParker C. EudyLaura Popp-RosenbergJanet L. HoffmanAdrian E. Harrison Jr.Nicole TenoreLydia T. GobenaAshford TuckerTamar Niv BessingerKatherine Lyon DaytonJames D. WeinbergerRobert A. BeckerLauren NathanEsteban Monge-MoreraEric T. GordonBrian LearyJohn P. MargiottaMaritza C. SchaefferShelby P. RokitoMassimo B. CapizziCarole E. KlingerJason D. JonesJoyce M. FerraroNadine H. JacobsonRichard Z. LehvAngela RamanauskasBarbara A. SolomonMary StotteleCharles T.J. Weigell, IIICarlos CucurellaTodd MartinAmanda B. AgatiNancy DiConzaAlejandra Camacho LunaChristina SauerbornDavid A. Donahue
    • A
    • B
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • H
    • I
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • P
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • T
    • u
    • v
    • w
    • x
    • y
    • z
    • View All
ShareBookmarkPrintPDF

October 18, 2023

Tangle Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc.

Fross Zelnick is defending client Aritzia, the North American clothing and accessories retailer, against claims of copyright and trade dress infringement filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Tangle, Inc. In spring 2023, Aritzia had displayed metallic pink–colored decorative sculptures in its retail store windows. Tangle, a toy manufacturer and owner of nine registered copyrights in looped tubular sculptures, alleged that Aritzia’s window displays infringed Tangle’s copyright and trade dress rights. On behalf of Aritzia, we moved to dismiss, principally arguing that Tangle’s asserted scope of copyright was too broadly stated and, if allowed, would grant Tangle an impermissible monopoly over all looped tubular sculptures.

The Court granted Aritzia’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, finding that Tangle had not plausibly pled its copyright or trade dress claims. Among other findings, the Court held that Tangle’s articulated scope of copyright constituted unprotectable ideas.

View Related Document (file: Tangle Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc.)

Primary Sidebar

Related

People

  • John P. Margiotta

    Partner

  • Brian Leary

    Associate

Focus

  • Fashion

Services

  • Copyright
  • Sitemap
© 2025 Fross Zelnick
  • Fross Zelnick and FZ are registered trademarks of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Legal & Privacy
  • Connect with us on LinkedIn
  • Contact

Stay Connected

  • People
  • Focus
    • Celebrities, Bands & Athletes
    • Consumer Products
    • Entertainment Properties
    • Fashion
    • Startup & Emerging Growth
    • Food & Beverage
    • Hospitality & Hotels
    • Jewelry & Watches
    • Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)
    • Personal Care & Cosmetics
    • Pharmaceuticals
    • Professional Services
    • Publishing
    • Sports
    • Toys
  • Services
    • Trademark
    • Copyright
    • Design
    • Data Privacy
    • Publicity & Privacy Rights
    • Litigation
    • International
    • Transactions
    • Social Media & Domain Names
  • Decisions
  • Newsroom
  • Our Firm
    • About Our Firm
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Recognition
    • Careers
    • Pro Bono
    • Contact