IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D.N.J.: Carpet manufacturer fails to sweep alleged infringement under the rug, (Jan 2, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

Dispute over allegedly purloined designs moves closer to trial.

A rug merchant that allegedly pilfered three Turkish carpet designs will face a trial over a claim of copyright infringement, the federal court for Newark, New Jersey has held. The court, in denying the company’s motion for summary judgment, found that minor mistakes in a copyright registration application and a dispute over the validity of a copyright transfer made originally in verbal form would have to be resolved by a jury (Ottomanson, Inc. v. Ameritu T8rading, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-12177-JXN-JSA (D.N.J. Dec. 29, 2025)).

The case involves a dispute between two sets of rug-makers. North Carolina-based Concord Global Trading collaborated with Turkish manufacturer Dinarsu to create three carpet designs in 2010. Three years later, ostensibly under a license granted by those designers, a New Jersey-based vendor of furniture and home goods named Ottomanson began selling rugs with the designs. At some point thereafter, Ottomanson came to believe that another New Jersey company, Well Woven, began marketing rugs with the same designs.

Ottomanson sued Well Woven (and its parent company, Ameritu Trading) for copyright infringement. The parties moved for summary judgment (Well Woven on the entire claim, and Ottomanson on a portion of it), leading to this opinion.

Validity of registration. The court first denied summary judgment for Well Worn—and granted partial summary judgment to Ottomanson—on the question of the validity of Ottomanson’s copyright registration. Well Worn attacked the registration on two grounds. First, Well Worn noted, Ottoman registered the works more than five years after it began marketing its designs. Second, Well Worn argued, the registration application contained several misstatements—among them an inaccurate publication date and a failure to include Concord, along with Dinarsu, as an original author of the designs. But neither of these were enough, the court found, to find the registration invalid.

The first point, the court found, merited only brief consideration. Under the Copyright Act, the statements within a copyright registration application filed within five years of publication are treated as prima facie accurate. But “[f]ailure to obtain a registration within five years does not render a copyright invalid,” the court noted. Rather, it only means that a plaintiff “must offer evidence showing their copyright is valid.” Moreover, the court noted, even a late registration may be given “the weight of prima facie evidence of validity” if the court deems it appropriate. “Framed in the language of summary judgment,” the court concluded, “the length of time between publication and registration is not evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

A fuller discussion was required to address the misstatements in the copyright registration application—but the outcome was effectively the same. Under the Copyright Act, the court noted, a certificate of registration is valid regardless of whether it contains inaccurate information unless the inaccuracy was made knowingly and “the inaccuracy of the information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration.” Neither of those prongs were proven at this stage of the case, the court found. For one thing, the court noted, Well Worn had produced no evidence that any mistakes in the application were done “knowingly or in willful ignorance.” Moreover, the court noted, there was no evidence that any of the purported misstatements would have caused the Register to refuse registration. Indeed, the court noted, courts in the Third Circuit have found misrepresentations of dates in copyright registration to be immaterial, and it was “clear that even knowing misrepresentations can void a copyright registration where the Register has not relied on them.” Summary judgment would not be granted on this basis.

Ownership of the copyright. Nor would Well Worn prevail on its challenge to Ottomanson’s ownership of the copyright. The two original designers made at best only an oral agreement, rather than a written one, to transfer the copyright to Ottomanson—not enough to constitute a valid assignment under the writing requirement of Section 204 of the Copyright Act, the court noted. But Ottomanson and two designers claimed to have later entered into a written agreement, while the lawsuit was pending, to purportedly ratify the early transfer. If true, that would be enough, the court found. While the Copyright Act requires a signed writing from the transferor of a copyright, the court noted, “such a writing need not be contemporaneous.” Indeed, the court noted, the Act “specifically contemplates a post-hoc note or memorandum of the transfer, as distinct from an instrument of conveyance, as a permissible means of satisfying the Act’s writing requirement.” Thus, the late writing alone would not be the basis to dismiss the claim.

Indeed, the late writing was sufficient to validate the transfer for another reason entirely, the court found. The writing requirement acted only like a statute of frauds, the court noted, “to resolve disputes between copyright owners and transferees and to protect copyright holders from persons mistakenly or fraudulently claiming oral licenses or copyright ownership.” But here, there was no dispute between those parties—both the original designers as well Ottomanson agreed that the transfer was valid. “A third-party infringer in such a case cannot evade liability by invoking § 204(a) and demanding a contemporaneously-drafted instrument,” the court noted. For that reason as well, summary judgment could not be granted.

But that did not end the inquiry, the court noted, because Ottomanson would also have to prove at trial there was in fact an earlier oral agreement. A post-hoc writing “cannot simultaneously prove an oral transfer occurred and give that transfer legal effect,” the court noted. “If it could, a distantly post-hoc writing would be capable of rendering enforceable a (possibly fictional) transfer that purportedly took place years or decades earlier but for which there is no independent evidence.” That said, the court noted, there was sufficient evidence, in the form of deposition testimony, that Ottomanson acquired the rights to the designs through a verbal agreement. As such, the court concluded, the case would move forward to trial.

Infringement. Finally, the court also declined to grant summary judgment on the merits of the infringement claim. There was plainly evidence of access, the court found, because Well Woven sent its own designer pictures an email with the Ottomanson-owned designs. Moreover, the court noted, the rugs certainly “appear[ed] similar,” at least to some extent. And while there were certain differences between the designs—different sizes and shapes to the branches, leaves, and other motif elements—that was something a jury would have to sort out. “[W]hether branches are too thick, leaves are too small, or flowers are too abstract is a question best left to the factfinder,” the court concluded. The case would go forward to trial.

The Case is No. 2:21-cv-12177-JXN-JSA.

Judge: Neals, J.

Attorneys: Aaron Bayram (Onal Gallant & Partners) for Ottomanson, Inc. Brent Reitter (Hinshaw Culbertson LLP) for Ameritu Trading, Inc.

Companies: Ottomanson, Inc.; Ameritu Trading, Inc.

Cases: Copyright NewJerseyNews GCNNews