JANGLE VISION, LLC, a California limited liability company v. ALEXANDER WANG, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ALEXANDER WANG, an individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANGLE VISION, LLC, a California limited
liability company,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ALEXANDER WANG, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; ALEXANDER WANG, an
individual,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55642
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-09964-GW-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 19, 2023
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and R. COLLINS,** District
Judge.
Jangle Vision, LLC appeals the district court’s dismissal of its claim against
Alexander Wang, Inc. and Alexander Wang (together, “Wang”) for infringing on
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
its copyright in the Jangle Vision Twins. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. “We review dismissals for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the
record.” Saloojas, Inc. v. Aetna Health of Cal., Inc., 80 F.4th 1011, 1014 (9th Cir.
2023). We affirm.
To bring a claim for infringement, a copyright owner must plausibly allege
that the infringing work is “substantially similar” to the copyrighted work.1
Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc).
Substantial similarity is measured according to an “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” test,
both of which a plaintiff must satisfy to show infringement. Id.; see also
Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2018) overruled in part on
other grounds by Skidmore, 952 F.3d at 1065–69. “The extrinsic test assesses the
objective similarities of the two works, focusing only on the protectable elements
of the plaintiff’s expression.” Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1118. “Before that
comparison can be made, the court must ‘filter out’ the unprotectable elements of
the plaintiff’s work—primarily ideas and concepts, material in the public domain,
1 The parties disagree whether the Twins should receive “broad” copyright
protection, which prohibits “substantially similar” copies of a protected work, or
whether they should receive “thin” copyright protection, which prohibits only
“virtually identical” copies. See Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Ent., Inc. 616 F.3d 904, 913–
14 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining this distinction). Because we hold that there is no
infringement even under the substantial similarity test, we assume that the Twins
are entitled to broad copyright protection.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
and scènes à faire . . . .” Id.
Jangle Vision alleges that Wang infringed on its copyright in the Twins by
incorporating similar characters into an advertisement for a handbag.2 Both the
Twins and the characters in the advertisement represent tall, thin figures in
skintight, solid-colored bodysuits with masks covering their face and head. As
Jangle Vision acknowledges, however, most of these elements—including the idea
of a figure in a body suit and mask, specific component of a character’s body type,
and the pink color of the characters in the advertisement—are not independently
protectable. See Mattel, Inc., 616 F.3d at 915 (“The concept of depicting a young,
fashion-forward female with exaggerated features . . . [is] unprotectable.”); Daniels
v. Walt Disney Co., 958 F.3d 767, 772 (9th Cir. 2020) (“colors themselves are not
generally copyrightable”).
Once those unprotected elements are “filter[ed] out,” the works here are
more dissimilar than similar. See Rentmeester, 883 F.3d at 1118. The design of the
Twins’ bodysuits and face masks are distinct from those of the advertisement
characters. The Twins, moreover, appear in different environments, are often
colored differently, are positioned in different postures, and have faces that are
2 Jangle Vision also alleged various other instances of copying, but conceded
before the district court that many of these allegations did not independently rise to
the level of actionable infringement. Jangle Vision appeals only the dismissal of its
claim that Wang’s advertisement infringes on its copyright in the Twins.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
distinctive and largely visible, while virtually no facial features are visible in the
advertisement. Accordingly, Jangle Vision has not shown substantial similarity.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --