20200519 d016 first amended complaint[4]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Case No. 8:20-cv-00876-DOC-JDEx FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF U.S. COPYRIGHT LAWS AND DEMAND

FOR JURY TRIAL

Howard N. Wisnia (Bar No. 184,626) WISNIA PC 12707 High Bluff Dr., Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 461-0989 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff [Additional counsel listed on signature page.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTEN N. COOLEY, guardian of the estate of NOLAN OCEAN COOLEY, a minor, Plaintiff, vs. TARGET CORPORATION, TARGET ENTERPRISE, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Case No. 8:20-cv-00876-DOC-JDEx FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF U.S. COPYRIGHT LAWS AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1. Plaintiff Kristen N. Cooley, in her capacity as guardian of the estate of Nolan

Ocean Cooley, a minor, brings these claims and causes of actions against Defendants Target

Corporation, Target Enterprise Inc. and John Does 1-10 (collectively, “Defendants” or

“Target”), as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

2. This copyright infringement action arises from the predatory and profit-driven

actions of a corporate retail powerhouse—Target—that exploited and illegally

misappropriated the creativity of a child artist living with Autism: Nolan Ocean Cooley.

Case 8:20-cv-00876-DOC-JDE Document 16 Filed 05/19/20 of 46 Page ID #:46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

3. Nolan Ocean Cooley is a uniquely talented child artist, who has been widely

recognized for his original works of art across the United States and particularly in the State

of California. From the time that Nolan Ocean Cooley was six (6) years old, his unique and

original artwork has served as the medium that enables him to channel his energies and

creativity into a productive form to share with the world. He has followed in his family’s

footsteps – his father, Dominic Cooley, is a well known and acclaimed photographer – in

bringing meanful art to the world, all the while being encouraged by his family. His work

has received critical acclaim including being reviewed in the Huffington Post and NY Daily

News, been the subject of several successful gallery art shows, been the subject of several

major co-branding deals (bumbag, Krink, 9Five), and numerous individual pieces of his art

work have been purchased by art lovers throughout the United States. In addition, Nolan

Ocean Cooley received widespread attention from a video concerning his work that went

viral several years ago with approximately 124,000 views and thousands more shares and

comments. That video may be seen at:

<https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10153456577961016>

4. As a result of his artistic endeavors over the past decade, the guardianship of

the estate of Nolan Ocean Cooley1 is the lawful owner of valid registered copyrights in the

creative expressions in numerous works of art that he originally created—the Copyrighted

Works (further defined below).

5. Among the many original elements that comprise Nolan’s creative expressions

in the Copyrighted Works is the unique manner in which he designs and draws imperfect

sketch-style dots or circles that he elects to combine, arrange and color into idiosyncratic

patterns.

6. As early as 2012 and certainly by no later than 2015, Nolan’s unique, sketch-

style dot art was accessible and displayed to the public, including on Nolan’s personal

1 For simplicity, “Kristen N. Cooley, Guardian of the Estate of Nolan Ocean Cooley, a minor” shall be referred to herein as “Plaintiff” or “Cooley.” Nolan Ocean Cooley, a minor, shall be referred to as “Nolan.”


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

webpage and Instagram social media page. It was also accessible on his mother and father’s

individual social media accounts. During this time period and by no later than 2016, Nolan’s

sketch-style dot art also was being publicly sold and distributed on clothing and other

merchandise, including through, among other things, negotiated agreements connected to

national Autism Awareness Month promotional events, and publicly displayed through art

galleries, media articles, Nolan’s personal webpage, as well as the Cooley family’s various

other social media pages and online platforms.

7. In June 2018, with full awareness of and access to Nolan’s original sketch-

style dot art, Target specifically targeted Nolan on his Instagram social media page to

recognize and honor him for his talents and creativity. In doing so, Target employees

expressly acknowledged their access to and awareness of Nolan’s original artwork, stating

to Nolan and his parents in various communications that, among other things: (i) Nolan’s

artwork publicly displayed on his Instagram “feed caught our [Target’s] eye;” (ii) Target

had identified Nolan as a young “artist[] and creator[]” who was “sparking joy for” other

young people; (iii) Target employees “were so impressed” with Nolan’s original works of

art; and (iv) that Nolan “stand[s] out as someone full of talent and potential.”

8. Target went so far as to invite Nolan to Target’s headquarters in Minnesota to

collaborate with other young artists and influencers in a workshop and project that Target

named, “CrushCon.” Target represented it would use its CrushCon workshop and project

to promote young artists in conjunction with Target’s company-wide support for

“creativity” and “empowerment” through social media, without ever using these artists’

pre-existing artwork, like Nolan’s Copyrighted Works, on or in connection with Target’s

sales of its own merchandise.

9. This representation proved false.

10. Soon after accepting Target’s invitation, the Cooleys learned firsthand that

Target’s seemingly laudable promotion program was anything but; instead, it was a bait-

and-switch tactic that Target used to copy, counterfeit and unlawfully misappropriate the

original, creative expressions in Nolan’s Copyrighted Works.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

11. Shortly after Nolan participated in this promotional program, Cooley learned

that Target had begun selling online and in its more than 1,800 retail stores across the U.S.

a line of children’s clothing and merchandise under its exclusive brand—“Cat & Jack™”—

that plainly copied and counterfeited the original sketch-style dot art design in Nolan’s

Copyrighted Works and/or were unlicensed derivative works of the Copyrighted Works.

12. The similarity between Target’s new line of children’s clothing under its Cat

& Jack™ exclusive brand (the “Infringing Products” defined in more detail below) and

Nolan’s Copyrighted Works is both striking and substantial, as one comparative look at an

example of a Copyrighted Work and an Infringing Product reveals:

Nolan’s Copyrighted Work Target’s Infringing Product

13. Target even publicly touted its new Cat & Jack™ children’s clothing line as

having been “Designed With Kids, For Kids” and including items that were “specifically

designed for kids with disabilities.” Target concealed from the public, however, the reality

that Target had actually exploited a child with a disability—Nolan—and stolen his original

expressions and designs in his Copyrighted Works for use in these Infringing Products that

Target sold to children across the country.

14. Target’s supposedly original line of new Cat & Jack™ children’s clothing and

merchandise—the Infringing Products—was so clearly copied from Nolan’s Copyrighted


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

Works that the Cooleys’ family and friends were deceived into believing that Target had

lawfully acquired Nolan’s artwork for use on Target’s merchandise.

15. That was not and never has been the case.

16. Instead, Target preyed on Nolan, exploiting his creativity and Target’s clear

and admitted access to and knowledge of his Copyrighted Works to generate significant

unlawfully-obtained profits from Target’s sale of the Infringing Products.

17. Target’s actions in doing so, as alleged herein, constitute willful and

intentional infringement of Nolan’s Copyrighted Works that illegally and inequitably

deprived him of his well-earned, exclusive rights in the Copyrighted Works.

18. And, unforgivably, Target has refused to rectify or in any way take

responsibility for its reprehensible actions.

19. In fact, after the Cooleys asked Target to stop selling his work and compensate

Nolan, Target’s lawyers belittled the Cooleys, claiming: “we have no reason to believe that

anyone had ever seen any of Mr. Cooley’s work, let alone copied from it as you claim,”

and even going so far as to suggest that Nolan’s highly acclaimed drawings raised “serious

questions whether they are copyrightable at all.” Yet, as explained below and discovery will

show, Target “targeted” Nolan and his art; Target had numerous designers and others “see

it” and in fact study his work and reach out to him. Target copied Nolan’s work and

commercialized it, all without attribution or compensation to Nolan. And when they were

caught, they simply denied it and attempted to frustrate the Cooleys’ ability to collect

relevant evidence.

20. Accordingly, Target has forced Cooley to bring this action to recover the actual

damages suffered and the ill-gotten profits Target has derived by unlawful misappropriating

Nolan’s original, creative expressions in his Copyrighted Works.

II. THE PARTIES

21. Plaintiff, Kristen N. Cooley, is the mother and guardian of the estate of her

minor son, Nolan, and brings this action on behalf of Nolan in her capacity as such. Nolan

is a 16-year-old minor child, who lives under the care of his loving parents, Kristen Cooley


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

and Dominic Cooley. Dominic Cooley is a renowned, professional photographer. Dominic

and Kristen Cooley have significant experience in the art industry and have together

successfully operated Dominic Cooley’s business as an artist and professional photographer

for many years. Proof of Kristen Cooley’s lawful appointment by the Superior Court of

California, County of San Diego, as guardian of Nolan’s estate is submitted herewith, along

with copies of the Order Appointing Guardian and Letters of Guardianship allowing for the

filing of the copyright registrations, engaging counsel and filing this suit, as Exhibit A. The

Cooleys are residents and citizens of the State of California. Nolan is the original author

and Cooley is the owner of the Copyrighted Works, which have been validly and duly

registered by the United States Copyright Office. Copies of the registrations are attached as

Exhibit B hereto.

22. Defendant, Target Corporation, is a publicly-traded, Minnesota corporation

that actively does and has done business in the State of California pursuant to its registration

with the Secretary of State of the State of California. Target Corporation may be served

with process through its registered corporate agent for service of process: CT Corporation

System, 818 West Seventh Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles, California 90017. Target

Corporation’s common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker

symbol, “TGT,” and Target Corporation is the parent company of numerous Target-owned

subsidiaries, affiliates and other entities.

23. Defendant, Target Enterprise, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant,

Target Corporation. Target Enterprise, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation that actively does

and has done business in the State of California pursuant to its registration with the

Secretary of State of the State of California. Target Enterprise, Inc. may be served with

process through its registered corporate agent for service of process: CT Corporation

System, 818 West Seventh Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles, California 90017.

24. The parent company, Defendant Target Corporation, and its subsidiary,

Defendant Target Enterprise, Inc., as well as the agents, servants, employees, designers,

distributors, vendors, manufacturers, factories, subsidiaries and affiliates of Target


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

Corporation and Target Enterprise, Inc., who acted on behalf of and within the course and

scope of their agency relationship with Target Corporation and/or Target Enterprise, Inc.,

including at least John Does 1-10 (defined below), are collectively referred to herein as

“Target” and/or “Defendants.”

25. Target is one of the largest and most recognizable retail conglomerates in the

United States. As of February 1, 2020, Target owned and/or operated 1,868 retail stores and

42 distribution centers across the U.S., including at least one retail store in all 50 States and

297 retail stores in the State of California—nearly double the amount of retail stores Target

operates in any other of the 50 States.2 To the public, Target: (i) describes itself as “a general

merchandise retailer with stores in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia;” (ii)

describes its retail stores as “truly the heart of Target;” and (iii) represents that “75% of the

U.S. population lives within 10 miles of a Target store.” According to Target, its business

is providing customers with “everyday essentials and fashionable, differentiated

merchandise at discounted prices.”

26. In 2019, Target generated over $77 billion in sales. “Approximately one-third”

of this sales revenue was generated by sales related to Target’s “owned and exclusive

brands,” which include, among others, “Cat & Jack™”—a brand that Target exclusively

owns and uses to sell products, including clothing, accessories, and other merchandise,

targeted to young children.

27. Defendants John Does 1-10, are, upon information and belief, individuals

and/or business entities who are and/or were at all relevant times alleged herein the agents,

servants, employees, designers, distributors, vendors, manufacturers, factories and/or

subsidiaries or affiliates of Target. In this capacity and within the course and scope of their

agency relationship with Target, John Does 1-10, directly and personally contributed to,

induced and/or engaged in the copying, reproduction, distribution and public display of,

2 According to Target’s sworn statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as of February 1, 2020, the top five (5) States in which Target owned and/or operated retail stores was as follows: (1) California – 297 stores; (2) Texas – 150 stores; (3) Florida – 124 stores; (4) Illinois – 95 stores; and (5) New York – 84 stores.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

and/or the preparation of derivative works from, the Copyrighted Works detailed herein.

Due to the secretive nature of the activities and identities of John Does 1-10, however,

Plaintiff is presently unaware of the true names and identities of John Does 1-10.

Accordingly, Plaintiff names these individuals and/or entities through the fictitious names,

“John Does 1-10.” Plaintiff anticipates these identities will be disclosed during discovery

upon inspection of the records maintained by Target, and will amend this complaint in due

course to state the true identities of these fictitious Defendants once known.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

28. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to federal statute—the

copyright laws of the United States, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. This Court, thus, has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and

17 U.S.C. § 501.

29. This Court has both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants

because Defendants have substantial contacts with the State of California such that the

exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction over Defendants does not and will not offend traditional

notions of fair play and substantial justice. In particular, Defendants have engaged in

continuous and systematic activities within the State of California, including owning and

operating 297 retail stores and at least two (2) corporate offices in the State and maintaining

a registration with the Secretary of State under which Defendants have continually and

systematically conducted business activities within the State and purposefully availed

themselves of the privilege of doing such business within the State over the past several

decades. Moreover, Defendants purposefully directed their business activities at residents

of the State of California, including within this Judicial District, and Defendants committed

tortious and illegal acts from which the claims alleged herein arise within the State of

California by offering for sale counterfeit and unlawful copies and/or derivative works of

the Copyrighted Works at Defendants’ retail stores located in California, including in this

Judicial District, as well as Defendants’ online digital sales channels and internet platforms

accessible by and available to residents of California and this Judicial District.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

30. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because Defendants

and their agents reside and/or “may be found” within this Judicial District and are subject

to personal jurisdiction within this District. Defendants’ registered agent for service of

process resides and may be found within this Judicial District, at 818 West Seventh Street,

Suite 930, Los Angeles, California 90017. Moreover, Target owns and/or operates 297 retail

stores in the State of California, including dozens that are located in Orange County and

other counties within this District and Division.3 In 2009, this Court found that Target

owned and operated “123 stores in this judicial district, thus establishing minimum contacts

with the State of California” and rendering venue proper against Target in this judicial

district and division—the Southern Division (Orange County) of the U.S. District Court for

3 For example, Target resides and/or may be found at the following Target locations in Orange County, at a minimum: (1) Target – Aliso Viejo, 26932 La Paz Rd., Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-3038; (2) Target – Anaheim, 101 S. Euclid St., Anaheim, CA 92802-1011; (3) Target – Anaheim East, 2222 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806-4107; (4) Target – Brea, 855 E. Birch St., Brea, CA 92821-5769; (5) Target – Buena Park, 7530 Orangethorpe Ave., Buena Park, CA 90621-3429; (6) Target – Costa Mesa, 3030 Harbor Blvd., Ste. A, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-2562; (7) Target – Cypress, 6835 Katella Ave., Cypress, CA 90630-5107; (8) Target – Fullerton South, 200 W Orangethorpe Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832-2900; (9) Target – West Fullerton, 1893 W. Malvern Ave., Fullerton, CA 92833-2403; (10) Target – Fullerton Yorba Linda, 2920 Yorba Linda Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92831-1523; (11) Target – Garden Grove Harbor, 12100 Harbor Blvd., Garden Grove, CA 92840-4004; (12) Target – Huntington Beach East, 9882 Adams Ave., Huntington Beach, CA 92646-4808; (13) Target – Irvine, 3750 Barranca Pkwy., Irvine, CA 92606-8200; (14) Target – Irvine University Town Center, 4255 Campus Dr., Ste. A150, Irvine, CA 92612-2668; (15) Target – Irvine North, 13200 Jamboree Rd., Irvine, CA 92602-2307; (16) Target – Irvine Spectrum, 900 Spectrum Center Dr., Irvine, CA 92618-4958; (17) Target – La Habra, 1000 W. Imperial Hwy., La Habra, CA 90631-6901; (18) Target – Mission Viejo, 24500 Alicia Pkwy., Mission Viejo, CA 92691-4508; (19) Target – Mission Viejo N., 25601 Jeronimo Rd., Mission Viejo, CA 92691-2794; (20) Target – Mission Viejo South, 27551 Puerta Real, Mission Viejo, CA 92691-6321; (21) Target – Orange, 2191 N. Tustin St., Orange, CA 92865-3701; (22) Target – East Orange, 2620 E. Chapman Ave., Orange, CA 92869-3205; (23) Target – Rancho Santa Margarita, 30602 Santa Margarita Pkwy., Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-2814; (24) Target – San Clemente, 990 Avenida Vista Hermosa, San Clemente, CA 92673-6360; (25) Target – Santa Ana NW, 1441 W. 17th St., Santa Ana, CA 92706-3301; (26) Target – Santa Ana South Coast, 3300 S. Bristol St., Santa Ana, CA 92704-7246; (27) Target – Santa Ana 17th Street, 1330 E. 17th St., Santa Ana, CA 92705-8500; (28) Target – Seal Beach, 12300 Seal Beach Blvd., Seal Beach, CA 90740-2709; (29) Target – Tustin, 2300 Park Ave., Tustin, CA 92782-2702; and (30) Target – Westminster, 16400 Beach Blvd., Westminster, CA 92683-7858.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

the Central District of California—under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. See Centon Elecs., Inc. v. Target

Corp., Case No. 8:09-cv-00534-DOC-RNB (ECF No. 21), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135937,

at *8-9 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2009) (Carter, J.).

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges all preceding paragraphs,

allegations and assertions, as if fully set forth herein.

A. The Artist, Nolan Ocean Cooley, and The Copyrighted Works

32. Nolan is a talented, 16-year-old artist, who has been uniquely expressing his

creativity in original works of art since early childhood. As the child of a professional artist

and photographer, Dominic Cooley, and a successful businesswoman in the art industry,

Kristen Cooley, art has always been an integral part of Nolan’s life.

33. At a very young age, Nolan was officially diagnosed as living with Autism.

And by the time he was approximately six (6) years old, Nolan had demonstrated a passion

for art—a medium that enabled him to channel his energy and emotions into expressing his

creative ideas. Over the decade that followed, Nolan acted on his passion and expressed his

creativity by creating a collection of original and widely-recognizable works of art.

34. Nolan’s original artwork is unquestionably unique. The overall beauty and

aesthetic appeal of Nolan’s original works of art stem from his special ability to deconstruct

the world around him into unique patterns of distinctively designed shapes and colors.

However, it is the eccentric manner, design and style through which Nolan creates his

artwork, and all of the many original elements thereof, that makes it one-of-a-kind and

distinctly his own. Since early childhood, Nolan has perfected a unique style to creatively

express his ideas in original works that he has created on everything from paper to canvas

to clothing to surfboards to skateboard decks, and more.

35. This case involves one particular collection of Nolan’s original works of art:

his sketch-style dot art. The calling card of Nolan’s original works in this collection is the

unique manner in which he has designed, created, combined, arranged and colored

imperfect, sketch-style dots that he hand-drew into idiosyncratic patterns.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

36. Plaintiff is the valid owner of registered copyrights for each of the following

works of sketch-style dot art that Nolan originally created and titled “Circle Happiness”

(collectively the “Copyrighted Works,” further identified in Exhibit B hereto):

Copyrighted Work No. 1 – Registration No. VA 2-202-200



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

Copyrighted Work No. 3 – Registration No. VAu 1-393-682



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL


37. As seen above, one of the many distinctive and unique elements of the

Copyrighted Works is the imperfection in Nolan’s sketch-style dot art. That is, Nolan does

not draw neat and tidy dots or circles in the Copyrighted Works; instead, he made the unique

creative choice to select, design and arrange the various elements of the Copyrighted Works

in an original and uniquely imperfect way that offers a form of symmetry without the

tidiness of computerized, animated or photographed graphics or patterns and reveals the

original authorship and expression of a young artist.

38. Specifically, despite the universe of creative choices an artist could make in

expressing the idea of a pattern of shapes and objects in designing these works, the

Copyrighted Works are original and distinctive due to the many creative choices Nolan

made in expressing his ideas in the Copyrighted Works. A non-exhaustive list of some of

these choices and elements includes, but is not limited to: (i) drawing and designing

imperfect dots in roughly circular shape; (ii) incompletely coloring the dots; (iii) using lines

drawn in a varying circular motion to create each unique, imperfect and incompletely-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

colored dot; (iv) using distinctive coloring lines of medium thickness (not stencil thinness

or blurring thickness); (v) drawing the dots in roughly, but not exactly, similar sizes, as

opposed to varying sizes; (vi) using interspersed complimentary colors for the dots (with

each circle generally being only a single color); (vii) spacing the dots in a way in which

none would overlap over another; (viii) arranging the dots in loosely, but not exactly,

geometric patterns; (ix) aligning the dots in a somewhat, but not precisely, linear

arrangement; and (x) choosing particular color combinations for the dots.

39. Each of the elements of the Copyrighted Works listed and seen above and

many more are original, creative and protected from copying, reproduction, display, sale or

distribution by another under the Copyright Act.

40. Moreover, and independently, Nolan’s selection, arrangement, coordination,

and combination of each of the elements he elected to use to create the pictorial Copyrighted

Works were original and creative, and are protected from copying, reproduction, display,

sale or distribution by another under the Copyright Act.

41. Nolan has invested, and continues to invest, substantial amounts of time, effort,

resources and creative talent to design, create and produce his original Copyrighted Works.

42. Nolan’s original and unique sketch-style dot art, reflected in the Copyrighted

Works, has been available and accessible to the public in different iterations since

approximately 2012, when the Cooleys began publicly displaying Nolan’s original works

of art online through, among other media, Dominic Cooley’s professional photography

website, Dominic and Kristen Cooley’s social media platforms, like Facebook and

Instagram, and eventually, Nolan’s website and social media platforms, including

Instagram, as well as by the social media presence of other entities such as Krink,

Huffington Post, Daily News, 9Five, bumbag, and others. During this time period, Nolan’s

original sketch-style dot art, reflected in the Copyrighted Works, also was sold and

distributed on clothing and other merchandise through various arrangements, including for

example, an agreement negotiated in connection with promotions for national Autism

Awareness Month beginning in April 2016 and continuing annually thereafter.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

43. Nolan’s talent as an artist is further demonstrated by the recognition and

following he has received for his original works of art, including the Copyrighted Works.

44. Thousands of individuals follow Nolan and his original artwork on the popular

social media application, Instagram, such that the engagement rate for his Instagram

account is triple the average account engagement rate on Instagram’s platform.

45. Other traditional media sources have published features about Nolan and his

artwork. For example, in a review of a 2017 Oceanside, California art gallery show featuring

Nolan’s original artwork, the Huffington Post published an article describing Nolan and his

works of art, stating, among other things:

Nolan, a 13 year old boy diagnosed with autism, is an up and coming wonder in the world of pop art. His work, an assembly of primary colors – lilacs, violets, blood oranges, ever greens, browns, burnt yellows and every other spectrum on the paint board of mankind. To my artist’s mind, I see humanity ordered with all of the distracting clutter of chaos removed. It is an exercise in humility and brilliance; balance and faith; knowing and being. This work is as much about life choices as it is palette selection. This work proposes to say every religion, every culture, every ethnicity, every socio-economic background – we are so different, but also alike. I see a Nolan Cooley piece saying, somehow “we all fit together.” I see a Nice Cool [Nolan Cooley] piece saying “We work together, we fall together and we rise together.” Andy Warhol was a master artist and entertainer. I don’t think he would be shocked at the onset of social media with “15 minutes of fame” being one of his most universally recognized precepts. And, I can see Andy Warhol seeing the perfect symmetry between a Nolan Cooley and the life surrounding it. If I had to choose a title of category for the work, perhaps “Magic Realism” or “Geometric Harmony” or “Visionary Fitting” or “Averaging Harmony.” 46. As another example, the New York Daily News on May 23, 2016 described

Nolan’s work as follows:

I recently became aware of an incredible 12-year-old named Nolan Cooley, who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at age 2, and since age 6 has been creating beautiful works of repetition as his artistic channel. Unbeknownst to him, he is actually working within a recognized dynamic of postmodernism, alongside renowned artists of repetition, including the blisteringly famous Andy Warhol with his multiple Marilyn Monroes and Campbell’s soup cans. The entire style of optical art used repetition to create


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

the illusion of movement, and we see the use of repetition in sculpture, art installations and even movies like “The Hurt Locker” to drive home salient points about contemporary society. While I instantly recognized this on an academic level, I also saw Nolan as a remarkably gifted boy, and as a mom myself, as someone’s child.

47. For another example, in March 2018, the internationally renowned art supply

company, Krink, promoted Nolan and his original works of art, including some of the

Copyrighted Works, through a biographical feature published on the homepage of Krink’s

website. Based in Brooklyn, New York, Krink is recognized within the art community as

the world’s quickest growing art supply line. Krink’s popular art supplies, famous for their

paint-drip aesthetic, are sold worldwide “from California to Moscow to Tokyo.” Krink has

been hired to create limited-edition products for companies like Nike, Casio and Coach.

Thus, Krink’s homepage feature on Nolan and his original artwork in March 2018 both

acknowledged and further publicized the widespread popularity of Nolan and his original

dot-style works of art. In promoting Nolan and the Cooley family, Krink’s feature stated:

Check out Nolan Cooley aka @yungcheeto. He’s a talented 13 year old California-based artist living with autism. We recently came across images of him and his work and love how Nolan and his family promote creativity. Nolan began obsessively creating repetitive pattern art at the age of six. Now 7 years later, Nolan has amassed a large collection of artwork—expressing his creativity and pouring out his passion on everything from paper to canvas to surfboards to skate decks and more. To see more of his work, visit nolancooley.com. Nolan’s mother founded HEART AUTISM (@heartaustim), an organization dedicated to funding activities that encourage individuals with ASD to become involved with their community. They strive to raise public awareness about ASD and its effects on individuals, families, and their community. They work to give those with this disorder the confidence and support they deserve to socialize with their community.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

48. And in cross-promoting Krink’s K-60 Paint Marker product, Krink’s March

2018 biographical piece published photographs of certain examples of Nolan’s original

works of art to Krink’s global audience, including the following (among others):

49. Nolan has been requested and invited to display his artwork in numerous art


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

shows. And, he has sold numerous pieces of his artwork and derivative works therefrom to

legitimate purchasers, who have found Nolan’s works of art via the numerous mediums,

including social media, through which he has displayed his artwork, including the

Copyrighted Works, as is his exclusive right under the U.S. Copyright Laws.

50. Nolan and Cooley have not abandoned the copyrights in the Copyrighted

Works and exclusive rights therein, or any interest in their exploitation or commercial use.

B. Target Targeted Nolan for His Creativity and Artistic Expressions

51. Like the rest of the public, Target had access to Nolan’s original dot-style art,

including many of the Copyrighted Works, as early as 2012, when the Cooleys began

publishing Nolan’s works online. At all relevant times thereafter, Target likewise had access

to these works, including the Copyrighted Works, through various other online publications,

including for example, in 2018, when Krink published its special feature on Nolan and his

original works of art to Krink’s global audience.

52. Prior to publishing and selling the Infringing Works and certainly by no later

than June 2018, Target was fully aware of and had access to Nolan’s Copyrighted Works.In

June 2018, Target began overtly targeting Nolan due to his popularity, creativity and artistic

talent expressed in Nolan’s original works of art, including the Copyrighted Works.

53. Specifically, on June 29, 2018, a Target Senior Creative Project Manager

contacted Nolan directly through his Instagram account, which Nolan’s parents managed.

On behalf of Target, this employee introduced herself by stating, “Hey Nolan, I work for

Target and your [Instagram] feed caught our eye.” When Nolan’s parents asked how Target

had discovered Nolan and his artwork, the Target employee responded, on behalf of Target,

that Target had previously “worked with a group of young Influencers” and through that

process identified Nolan as one of a select group of young “artists and creators [who] were

sparking joy for [these young people].” The Target employee further represented that, as of

June 29, 2018, a decision already had been made by Target and “all” of its “editors” that

“Nolan was an immediate yes[.]”


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

54. On information and belief, Target had accessed, reviewed and analyzed

Nolan’s original artwork posted on his Instagram account and elsewhere, including certain

of the Copyrighted Works, long before overtly contacting Nolan in June 2018. The decision

to contact Nolan, compliment his original artwork and invite Nolan to collaborate with other

young artists at a Target event (discussed below) necessarily required Target to have had

access to and been aware of and familiar with Nolan’s artwork before recognizing and

honoring him for it.

55. In correspondence from another Target employee to the Cooleys, Target’s

Senior Creative Project Manager acknowledged Target’s “creative team” had “shared

[Nolan’s] art” with other Target departments/divisions and employees and stated that all of

these Target employees “were so impressed!”

56. Based on his talent, creativity and popularity, Target further invited Nolan to

participate in a social media promotional project, called “CrushCon,” which was

supposedly designed to allow Target to recognize young artists, like Nolan.

57. Target led the Cooleys to believe that the purpose of this project was to enable

Target to post pictures and videos of these young artists creating their iconic artwork to

Target’s social media pages as a form of marketing. Target claimed it intended to use this

content to launch a new promotional Instagram account, called @TargetTag, that would

promote Target’s support of and dedication to the creativity that flows through young

artists.

58. To participate in this supposed social media project, Target invited Nolan to

attend a workshop at Target’s headquarters in Minnesota from July 16-18, 2018.

59. The official invitation that Target sent stated as follows:

It’s official: We’re Crushing on You. On behalf of Target Corporation, you’re invited to join us at HQ on July 16th in Minneapolis, Minnesota for the first-ever Target CrushCon. We’re inviting up-and-coming creatives from across the country to jump in to an inspiring and energetic 3-day workshop. Target wants to be a company that supports the creativity, empowerment and impact of everyone—and you stand out as someone full of talent and potential.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

60. Nolan’s parents, in consulation with Nolan, accepted Target’s invitation and

attended the Target workshop at Target’s headquarters in Minnesota from July 16-18, 2018.

61. Neither Nolan, Kristen Cooley, Dominic Cooley, nor anyone else ever

authorized, permitted or otherwise allowed Target to use, sell, copy, publish, distribute,

make derivative works from, or otherwise commercially benefit from the Copyrighted

Works, in connection with the Infringing Products.

62. Target specifically had no right to use or authorize the use of Nolan’s original

artwork, including the Copyrighted Works, in any of Target’s merchandise or sellable

products in connection with Target’s CrushCon social media project or otherwise. As a

condition to Nolan’s participation in Target’s CrushCon event, his mother, Kristen Cooley,

informed Target that Target could not and had no right to use “Nolan’s art, signature or

likeness on actual retail sellable product,” like Target’s merchandise including the

Infringing Products.

63. The fact that Target targeted and specifically sought Nolan out for his artistic

talent demonstrates Target was aware of and had full access to Nolan’s original works of

art, including the Copyrighted Works.

64. And, the fact that Target specifically invited Nolan to attend and participate in

a project supposedly designed to enable Target to demonstrate its support of creativity in

young artists further demonstrates Target was aware of and had full access to Nolan’s

original works of art, including the Copyrighted Works.

65. Target demonstrated its acute awareness of and access to Nolan’s unique

artwork by posting to its own Instagram account the following photograph and description

of Nolan and some of his distinctive sketch-style dot art, shortly after the July 2018

workshop that Nolan attended at Target’s request:


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

66. At Target’s headquarters, Nolan participated in various collaborative projects

with Target employees and other young artists for three (3) full working days.

C. Target Willfully and Unlawfully Copied Nolan’s Original Expressions in the Copyrighted Works

67. Unfortunately, in the months that followed, the Cooleys learned that Target

had misappropriated Nolan’s original expressions in the Copyrighted Works. Specifically,

by August 2018, the Cooleys discovered that Target was selling an entire line of products

that plainly and unlawfully copied, and/or were derivative works from, Nolan’s creative

expressions in the Copyrighted Works.

68. Target sold these products (the “Infringing Products”) as a line of clothing and

other merchandise for young children under Target’s exclusive Cat & Jack™ brand.

69. Target promoted its exclusive Cat & Jack™ line as having been “Designed

With Kids, For Kids,” further stating: “It’s a kid’s world with Cat & Jack—our newest (and

largest ever) line of clothing for kids and baby, with our youngest guests—real kids from


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

around the country—helping design the collection, model the clothes, and so much more.”

70. According to Target’s Senior Vice President of Product Design and

Development, Target “decided to introduce Cat & Jack, our new brand for kids because

kids is a signature category and we want to be famous for it.”

71. Target had access to Nolan’s original dot-style works of art, including certain

of the Copyrighted Works, before Target’s original launch of the first iteration of its

exclusive Cat & Jack™ brand in July 2016.

72. In addition to marketing its Cat & Jack™ children’s clothing line as “Designed

With Kids, For Kids,” Target specifically promoted the line to children with disabilities:

73. According to Target’s Copy Writer for marketing and promotional materials

for its Cat & Jack™ children’s clothing line, Target’s “Product Design team . . . specifically

designed [certain Cat & Jack™ items] for kids with disabilities.”

74. Target’s Copy Writer for marketing and promoting Target’s Cat & Jack™

brand directly interacted with the Cooleys and even stated to the Cooleys that she was

responsible for originally finding Nolan and his artwork for Target. Her admitted access to

and awareness of Nolan’s artwork and Target’s subsequent copying of it in its Cat & Jack™


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

products plainly was no coincidence.

75. Despite touting to the public that Target’s Cat & Jack™ merchandise was

designed with kids and that certain of these items were specifically designed for children

with disabilities, Target concealed from the public the reality that Target had actually

exploited and stolen creative and original works of art from a child with a disability—

Nolan—in order to design its Cat & Jack™ Infringing Products.

76. The Infringing Products include, but on information and belief, are not limited

to, the items depicted below:

Infringing Product No. 1 - Product SKU No. 069-03-1715


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL



77. Based on information and belief, Target produced and sold many additional

Infringing Products that infringed the Copyrighted Works, including for example, wrapping

paper, neck rests, and other items that may be identified in more detail upon review of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

Target’s internal records and inventories through discovery in this action.

78. As shown in the images above, the Infringing Products are virtually identical

and/or substantially similar to the protected elements and creative expressions in the

Copyrighted Works, including by way of example, the design, selection, arrangement, and

combination of each of the elements that comprise the Copyrighted Works.

79. The Infringing Products are further virtually identical and/or substantially

similar to the Copyrighted Works in terms of their overall look, concept and feel.

80. The Infringing Products are further virtually identical and/or substantially

similar to the Copyrighted Works in terms of their appearance, subject matter, shapes,

colors, materials and arrangement, as reflected in the objective details of both the

Copyrighted Works and the Infringing Products.

81. By way of example only, a non-exhaustive list of the specific ways in which

the Infringing Products copy original and protected elements of the Copyrighted Works

includes, at a minimum, the following aspects of the Infringing Works that were copied

from the Copyrighted Works: (i) imperfect dots drawn and designed in roughly circular

shape; (ii) imperfect dots that are incompletely and inconsistently colored; (iii) uniquely-

designed dots drawn by lines in varying circular motions; (iv) dots drawn by distinctive

coloring lines of medium thickness (not stencil thinness or blurring thickness); (v) dots

drawn in roughly, but not exactly, similar sizes, as opposed to varying sizes; (vi) dots

interspersed with complimentary colors (with each dot generally being only a single color);

(vii) dots spaced in a way in which none would overlap over another; (viii) dots arranged

in loosely, but not exactly, geometric patterns; (ix) dots aligned in a somewhat, but not

precisely, linear arrangement; and (x) dots colored in substantially similar color

combinations.

82. The Infringing Products are so strikingly similar to the Copyrighted Works

that, by August 2018, Nolan’s parents began receiving communications from family and

friends, congratulating the Cooleys for Target’s use of Nolan’s artwork in Target’s

products, under the wrong impression that Target had dealt fairly with Nolan or Cooley and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

obtained rights for the works. In particular, upon viewing some of the Infringing Products

being sold in Target’s California locations in August 2018, a close family friend who had

been in possession of a lawful copy of Copyrighted Work No. 6 (Registration No. VA 2-

202-261) for many years specifically contacted the Cooleys to congratulate them, under the

wrongful impression that the Cooleys must have authorized Target to use and copy Nolan’s

artwork to design the Infringing Products.

83. Thereafter, the Cooleys themselves confirmed these reports of Target’s

betrayal by personally observing Target’s display, distribution and commercial sale of many

of these Infringing Products at Target retail stores in the State of California, as well as

through Target’s globally accessible e-commerce website online.

84. In other words, Target’s willful deception succeeded in its purpose by

convincing those familiar with Nolan’s artwork that Target had used the Copyrighted

Works in the Infringing Products.

85. That is, ordinary individuals who observed the Infringing Products in Target

stores and on Target’s online sales platform reasonably believed that the Infringing Products

were substantially similar and/or virtually identical to the Copyrighted Works in overall

concept and feel, appearance, subject matter, shape, coloring, material and arrangement.

86. Contrary to this warranted confusion, however, Target had no permission,

license, authorization or right to reproduce, copy or otherwise make copies of the

Copyrighted Works, to prepare derivative works based upon the Copyrighted Works, to sell

or otherwise commercially benefit from the Copyrighted Works, or to display or otherwise

distribute to the public the Copyrighted Works or any copies thereof.

87. But, that is exactly what Target knowingly and willfully did with the Infringing

Products.

88. Target knowingly and willfully copied and unlawfully misappropriated the

protected elements of the Copyrighted Works in the Infringing Products.

89. Target knowingly and willfully infringed the Copyrighted Works.

90. Target knowingly and willfully exploited Nolan’s creativity and original


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

works of art.

91. And, Target knowingly and willfully profited substantially from its

infringement of the Copyrighted Works.

D. Target Wrongfully Derived Substantial Revenues and Profits from Target’s Exploitation of Nolan and Infringement of The Copyrighted Works

92. Target sold the Infringing Products in its physical stores in the State of

California and around the country.

93. Target similarly sold the Infringing Products on Target’s online website,

available to individuals throughout the United States and around the world.

94. Target sold the Infringing Products online and in its more than 1,800 physical

stores, including within the State of California, from at least August 2018 through

November 2018. On information and belief, Target sold some, if not many, of these

Infringing Products for a much longer period of time that may be identified and confirmed

through discovery in this action upon analysis of Target’s internal records.

95. Target specifically thwarted the Cooleys’ efforts to investigate the extent of

Target’s infringement of the Copyrighted Works and collect exemplars of the Infringing

Products. For example, upon learning that Target was selling the Infringing Products, the

Cooleys asked family friends to collect any exemplars of the Infringing Products that any

friends found on sale at a Target location or through Target’s website. After seeing that

Target’s website showed certain of the Infringing Products in stock at a Target store in

Chula Vista, a Target employee informed one of the Cooleys’ friends that the product was

out of stock and had been salvaged out.

96. Moreover, in November 2018, after another of the Cooleys’ friends uploaded

a message to a Facebook page, called “TargetMoms” for shoppers, requesting that members

of the group collect exemplars of the Infringing Products. Much to her surprise, however,

she quickly learned that this Facebook group covertly was operated by Target itself when

Target took down and deleted the message entirely from the TargetMoms Facebook page.

97. By selling the Infringing Products, Target unlawfully derived substantial ill-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

gotten revenues and profit.

98. Target’s infringement of the Copyrighted Works through its public display and

sales of the Infringing Products illegally exploited Nolan and robbed Cooley of the lawful

right to commercially benefit from his creative talent expressed in his original works of art.

99. Target’s infringement of the Copyrighted Works has deprived Cooley of the

intellectual property rights in Nolan’s own artistic creations—the Copyrighted Works—for

which Cooley has suffered irreparable injury and significant actual damages.

E. Target Refuses to Accept Responsibility for Its Illegal Actions and Forces Plaintiff to Bring this Action

100. In September 2018, Nolan’s family informed Target of Target’s unlawful

infringement of the Copyrighted Works, demanding that Target, among other things, (i)

cease and desist any further sale of the Infringing Products and (ii) provide the Cooleys with

a list of all items purchased or sold by Target that included any infringing copy of any part

of any of Nolan’s Copyrighted Works.

101. Target, however, refused to do so and continued to willfully infringe the

Copyrighted Works through its sale of the Infringing Products.

102. Target further specifically frustrated the Cooleys’ ability to investigate the

extent of Target’s infringement and collect exemplars of the Infringing Products, as set forth

above, by among other things, pulling certain of the Infringing Products from shelves,

stating that certain of the Infringing Products had been “salvaged out,” and removing posts

from Target’s covert Facebook pages that inquired about the Infringing Products.

103. Target’s actions and refusal to accept responsibility therefore have forced the

Cooleys to come to this Court to enforce the law and provide justice to the Cooleys for

Target’s predatory exploitation of Nolan and illegal misappropriation of Nolan’s original,

creative expressions in the Copyrighted Works.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I (Direct Copyright Infringement in Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.)



105. Nolan is the original author and creator of the Copyrighted Works.

106. Cooley is the valid and registered owner of the Copyrighted Works and, thus,

lawfully owns the exclusive right to reproduce, copy or otherwise make copies of the

Copyrighted Works, to prepare derivative works based upon the Copyrighted Works, to sell

or otherwise commercially benefit from the Copyrighted Works, or to display or otherwise

distribute to the public the Copyrighted Works or any copies thereof.

107. Target infringed Cooley’s exclusive copyrights in the Copyrighted Works,

including the right to reproduce, copy or otherwise make copies of the Copyrighted Works,

to prepare derivative works based upon the Copyrighted Works, to sell or otherwise

commercially benefit from the Copyrighted Works, or to display or otherwise distribute to

the public the Copyrighted Works or any copies thereof.

108. Target had no permission, authorization, license or other right to infringe the

Copyrighted Works.

109. Target had full access to and awareness of the Copyrighted Works prior to

making the Infringing Products available for sale.

110. Target had access to the Copyrighted Works prior to launching Target’s

original Cat & Jack™ products prior to July 2016. And, Target had access to the

Copyrighted Works prior to contacting Nolan in the summer of 2018.

111. Target’s Infringing Products unlawfully copy the original, creative elements

of the Copyrighted Works.

112. Target’s Infringing Products represent illegal copies of and/or derivative

works from the Copyrighted Works.

113. Target’s Infringing Products are virtually identical and/or substantially similar


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

to the original and creative expressions of Nolan in the Copyrighted Works, including the

design, selection, arrangement and combination of the numerous elements that comprise

the Copyrighted Works.


to the Copyrighted Works in terms of their overall look, concept and feel.


to the Copyrighted Works in terms of their appearance, subject matter, shapes, colors,

materials, and arrangement, as reflected in the objective details of both the Copyrighted

Works and the Infringing Products.

116. Target’s acts detailed herein constitute infringement of the Copyrighted Works

in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 501, et seq.

117. Target’s acts have been deliberate, willful, intentional and purposeful, in

reckless disregard of and with deliberate indifference to Cooley’s exclusive rights.

118. Cooley has suffered actual damages as a direct and proximate result of Target’s

infringement of the Copyrighted Works through Target’s actions alleged herein.

119. Target has unlawfully derived substantial ill-gotten gains in the forms of

revenue and profit generated from its willful and knowing infringement of the Copyrighted

Works through selling the Infringing Products throughout the United States, including in

the State of California.

120. Under the copyright laws of the United States, Cooley is entitled to recover

actual damages and disgorgement of Target’s unlawful profits derived from the sale of the

Infringing Products; or, at Cooley’s exclusive election, to recover statutory damages in the

maximum amount allowable by law.


“full costs” of bringing this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Count II (Inducement and Contributory Copyright Infringement)



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL


123. Target has induced, caused, and/or materially contributed to the unauthorized

reproduction, copying, display, commercial sale and public distribution of the Copyrighted

Works on the internet, on Target’s websites and at Target’s more than 1,800 physical stores

across the United States, including in the State of California.

124. Target’s conduct alleged herein constitutes contributory infringement of the

Copyrighted Works.

125. Target’s acts detailed herein have been deliberate, willful, intentional,

purposeful, in reckless disregard of, and taken with deliberate indifference to Cooley’s

exclusive rights.

126. As a direct and proximate result of Target’s acts and conduct alleged herein,

Cooley has suffered actual damages and Target has unlawfully derived substantial ill-gotten

gains in the forms of revenues and profits from the sales of the Infringing Products.


actual damages and disgorgement of Target’s unlawful profits derived from the sale of the

Infringing Products; or, at Cooley’s exclusive election, to recover statutory damages in the

maximum amount allowable by law.

128. Under the copyright laws of the United States, Cooley is further entitled to

recover “full costs” of bringing this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for relief and judgment, as follows:

1. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff against Defendants on each of Plaintiff’s

claims for relief;

2. For an award of any and all damages available to and/or sustained by Plaintiff,

including but not limited to an award of damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504

that includes full restitution, actual damages suffered as a result of Defendants’

unlawful infringement, and disgorgement of all revenues and/or profits derived

by Defendants as a result of Defendants’ infringement in an amount to be


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

proven at trial; or, alternatively and at Plaintiff’s election, the maximum

amount of statutory damages allowable under 17 U.S.C. § 504 with respect to

each of the Copyrighted Works;

3. For an award of Plaintiff’s “full costs” and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this

action pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505 and any other applicable law;

4. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest according to applicable law; and

5. For such other and further relief as may be just, equitable and proper.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

VII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and this Court’s Local Rule 38-1,

Plaintiff hereby explicitly demands a trial by jury on all triable claims and issues.

Dated: May 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

WISNIA PC By: /s/ Howard N. Wisnia Howard N. Wisnia (Bar No. 184,626) 12707 High Bluff Dr., Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 461-0989 [email protected]

NIX PATTERSON, LLP Jeffrey J. Angelovich (pro hac vice forthcoming) Bradley E. Beckworth (pro hac vice forthcoming) Lisa P. Baldwin (pro hac vice forthcoming) Ross Leonoudakis (pro hac vice forthcoming) Cody L. Hill (pro hac vice forthcoming) 3600 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 350 Austin, TX 78746 Tel: (512) 328-5333 Fax: (512) 328-5332 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] -and-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FOR JURY TRIAL

Susan Whatley (pro hac vice forthcoming) P.O. Box 178 Linden, TX 75563 Tel: (903) 215-8310 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff


EXHIBIT A

Exhibit A 47 of 85

Case 8:20-cv-00876-DOC-JDE Document 16-1 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:92

Exhibit A 48 of 85


Exhibit A 49 of 85


Exhibit A 50 of 85


Exhibit A 51 of 85


Exhibit A 52 of 85


Exhibit A 53 of 85


EXHIBIT B

Exhibit B 54 of 85


Registration #: VA0002202200Service Request #: 1-8800396727

Mail Certificate

Wisnia PCHoward Wisnia12707 High Bluff Dr. Suite 200San Diego, CA 92130 United States

Priority: Special Handling Application Date: May 04, 2020

Correspondent

Organization Name: Wisnia PCName: Howard WisniaEmail: [email protected]

Telephone: (858)461-0989Address: 12707 High Bluff Dr.

Suite 200San Diego, CA 92130 United States

Exhibit B 55 of 85


of 1

Registration Number

VA 2-202-200Effective Date of Registration:May 04, 2020Registration Decision Date:May 06, 2020

Title

Title of Work: Circle Happiness

Completion/PublicationYear of Completion: 2018

Date of 1st Publication: September 18, 2018Nation of 1st Publication: United States

Author

• Author: Nolan Ocean CooleyAuthor Created: 2-D artwork

Work made for hire: NoCitizen of: United States

Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant

Copyright Claimant: Guardianship of the Estate of Nolan Ocean Cooley1029 Stratton Drive, Vista, CA, 92083, United States

Transfer statement: By court order, Kristen Cooley was appointed Guardian of the Estate of Nolan Cooley, a minor

0

0Certification

Name: Howard WisniaDate: May 04, 2020

Applicant's Tracking Number: Cooley 14Date: May 04, 2020

Approved

Exhibit B 56 of 85



Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 57 of 85


of 1

Registration Number


Title



Date of 1st Publication: July 01, 2017Nation of 1st Publication: United States

Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 58 of 85



Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 59 of 85


of 1

Registration Number


Title



Date of 1st Publication: December 01, 2017Nation of 1st Publication: United States

Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 60 of 85



Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 61 of 85


of 1

Registration Number


Title



Date of 1st Publication: April 14, 2016Nation of 1st Publication: United States

Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 62 of 85



Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 63 of 85

Case 8:20-cv-00876-DOC-JDE Document 16-2 Filed 05/19/20 Page 10 of 32 Page ID

#:108

of 1

Registration Number


Title



Date of 1st Publication: April 14, 2016Nation of 1st Publication: United States

Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 64 of 85


#:109


Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 65 of 85


#:110

of 1

Registration Number


Title




Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 66 of 85


#:111


Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 67 of 85


#:112

of 1

Registration Number


Title



Date of 1st Publication: December 01, 2017Nation of 1st Publication: United States

Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 68 of 85


#:113


Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 69 of 85


#:114

of 2

Registration Number


Title




Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



ApprovedCorrespondence: Yes

Exhibit B 70 of 85


#:115

of 2Exhibit B 71 of 85


#:116

Registration #: VAu001393573Service Request #: 1-8800206891

Mail Certificate

Wisnia PCHoward Wisnia12707 High Bluff Dr.,Suite 200San Diego, CA 92130 United States


Correspondent


Telephone: (858)461-0989Address: 12707 High Bluff Dr.,


Exhibit B 72 of 85


#:117

of 1

Registration Number

VAu 1-393-573Effective Date of Registration:May 04, 2020Registration Decision Date:May 06, 2020

Title



Author



Domiciled in: United StatesYear Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant


Transfer statement: By Court order, Kristen N, Cooley was appointed the Guardian of the Estate of Nolan Cooley, a minor

0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 73 of 85


#:118


Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 74 of 85


#:119

of 1

Registration Number


Title



Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 75 of 85


#:120


Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 76 of 85


#:121

of 1

Registration Number


Title



Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 77 of 85


#:122


Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 78 of 85


#:123

of 1

Registration Number


Title



Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 79 of 85


#:124


Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 80 of 85


#:125

of 1

Registration Number


Title



Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 81 of 85


#:126


Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 82 of 85


#:127

of 1

Registration Number


Title



Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



Approved

Exhibit B 83 of 85


#:128


Mail Certificate



Correspondent




Exhibit B 84 of 85


#:129

of 1

Registration Number


Title



Author



Year Born: 2004

Copyright Claimant



0

0Certification



ApprovedCorrespondence: Yes

Exhibit B 85 of 85


#:130

20200519 d016 first amended complaint[4]

Documents