Corporate Counsel Daily, Jewelry company’s infringement claims over bee-themed designs survive former wholesaler’s dismissal challenge, (Mar 25, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The defendant failed to overcome the presumption of validity; substantial similarity was plausibly alleged across registered designs.

The federal district court in Manhattan, New York, has denied a motion to dismiss a jewelry designer’s copyright and trademark infringement claims, holding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged ownership of valid copyrights and substantial similarity between its designs and the defendant’s accused products. The court rejected arguments that the registrations were invalid or limited in scope. Further, it held that the defendant’s challenges—based on differences in deposit materials and the use of natural elements such as bees, honeycombs, and flowers—did not defeat plausibility at the pleading stage. It concluded that questions of non-infringement and similarity were better reserved for the trier of fact (Nina Designs, Ltd. v. Bjorn's Colorado Honey Inc., No. 1:25-cv-03171-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Nina Designs, Ltd., is a California-based jewelry company that creates and sells nature-inspired designs through wholesale and retail channels. The defendant, Bjorn’s Colorado Honey Inc., is a Colorado-based business that had previously acted as a wholesale customer of Nina, purchasing its products between 2021 and 2024 before allegedly copying and selling similar designs after ending the commercial relationship.

Nina asserted multiple registered copyrights covering its “Bee & Flower” jewelry collection, including designs such as the “Honeycomb Ring with Bee” (Reg. No. VA 2-263-532), honeycomb-and-bee pendants (Reg. Nos. VA 1-865-968 and VA 1-773-661), bee-themed charms (Reg. No. VA 2-004-009), honeycomb cluster designs (Reg. No. VA 2-102-994), a moon-phase bee pendant (Reg. No. VA 2-238-205), and cherry blossom designs (Reg. Nos. VA 2-431-385 and VA 2-433-588). The complaint also asserted trademark-related claims tied to the distinctive appearance and branding of these designs, though the court’s analysis primarily focused on copyright validity and infringement.

The dispute arose after Bjorn’s ceased purchasing Nina’s products and allegedly began manufacturing and selling nearly identical jewelry items through its own website. Nina alleged that the defendant copied at least nine of its designs, including honeycomb rings, pendants, charms, and floral motifs, without authorization. It further alleged that despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter in February 2025, Bjorn’s continued selling the accused products. Nina filed the suit seeking damages, injunctive relief, destruction of infringing goods, and an accounting of profits. Bjorn’s moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims were legally deficient and the asserted copyrights invalid.

Registration scope. The court first addressed Bjorn’s challenge to the scope of certain registrations, particularly Registration No—VA 1-865-968, which covered a catalog insert rather than individual designs. Rejecting the argument, the court relied on E. Am. Trio Prods., Inc. v. Tang Elec. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y.), noting that registration of a collective work can support infringement claims for its constituent parts. It found that the catalog clearly included identifiable individual designs and that the registration constituted prima facie evidence of ownership.

The court also rejected the argument that Nina had disclaimed certain design elements during correspondence with the Copyright Office. It held that the registration certificate itself controlled and that the allegedly excluded designs were not among those expressly disclaimed. Accordingly, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of validity.

Deposit discrepancies. Turning to alleged inconsistencies between deposit materials and accused products, the court held that such differences did not preclude a finding of infringement at the pleading stage. Relying on Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995), the court emphasized that infringement analysis focuses on the “total concept and feel” of the works, rather than isolated differences in medium, color, or minor features. It concluded that Nina plausibly alleged that the accused products captured the overall aesthetic and arrangement of protected elements.

Natural elements. Bjorn’s principal defense—that the designs were unprotectable because they depicted natural elements such as bees, flowers, and honeycombs—also failed. The court acknowledged that copyright does not extend to ideas or natural phenomena. However, it clarified that protection extends to the artist’s original expression of those elements, including choices of arrangement, composition, and detail. Applying this principle, the court found that Nina’s designs involved creative decisions in the placement of bees, configuration of honeycomb patterns, and arrangement of floral elements. It held that the defendant had not sufficiently rebutted the presumption of originality under 17 U.S.C. § 410(c), citing Scholz Design, Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, LLC, 691 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2012).

Substantial similarity. The court further held that Nina plausibly alleged substantial similarity between the works. It pointed to detailed similarities in the structure and layout of honeycomb patterns, including identical arrangements of hexagonal cells and consistent positioning of bee elements. For example, the complaint described nearly identical configurations of eleven hexagons arranged across multiple rows in both plaintiff’s and defendant’s designs.

Similarly, the court found plausible similarity in the moon-phase pendant designs, noting identical sequences and placement of lunar phases above a centrally positioned bee. It also found that the cherry blossom designs exhibited comparable arrangements and composition, particularly in the positioning of floral clusters and accompanying bee motifs. Relying on Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010), the court emphasized that courts should assess the overall impression of the works rather than dissecting them into components. It concluded that the similarities alleged were sufficient to support an inference of copying and unlawful appropriation at the pleading stage.

Procedural posture. Finally, the court declined to resolve questions of non-infringement as a matter of law, noting that such determinations are typically reserved for the factfinder. It noted that dismissal would be inappropriate where the complaint plausibly alleged substantial similarity and access.

Accordingly, the court denied Bjorn’s motion to dismiss in its entirety and directed the parties to proceed with the litigation.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-03171-LAP.

Judge: Preska, L.

Attorneys: Wesley Martin Mullen (Mullen, Arms & Fitzpatrick LLP) for Nina Designs, Ltd. Roderick O'Dorisio (Rod Law LLC) for Bjorn's Colorado Honey Inc.

Companies: Nina Designs, Ltd.; Bjorn's Colorado Honey Inc.

Cases: Copyright NewYorkNews GCNNews