- within Energy and Natural Resources topic(s)
- with readers working within the Basic Industries industries
Executive Summary
A recent decision in Post University Inc. v. Learneo, Inc. (operator of Course Hero) offers a timely roadmap for educational institutions confronting unauthorized online dissemination of course materials. On September 23, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court allowed key claims—including Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims under 17 U.S.C. § 1202 and Lanham Act trademark claims—to proceed to trial, while dismissing certain state law claims as preempted by the Copyright Act. These claims will proceed to trial together with plaintiff's direct copyright infringement claims, which were not part of Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
For educational organizations, the decision underscores practical steps to protect instructional content and clarifies how platforms' design and document handling can create exposure under federal IP statutes—even when content is user-uploaded.
Why This Case Matters
Post University alleges that faculty- and staff-created syllabi, assignments, exams, and other instructional files were uploaded and distributed on Course Hero without authorization. The court's analysis gives institutions guidance on how online platforms' document processing, previews, watermarks, and metadata practices intersect with copyright and trademark rights. The court's refusal to short-circuit the DMCA and Lanham Act claims signals that plaintiffs can reach a jury where there is evidence that a platform's design conceals attribution, removes or alters copyright management information (CMI), or creates a likelihood of confusion around the source or sponsorship of educational materials.
Key Takeaways for Educational Institutions
- The court acknowledged evidence that platform workflows can strip or conceal CMI, add platform branding, and gate full attribution behind paywalls or account creation—all facts that can support DMCA claims.
- DMCA claims under § 1202 require "double scienter" but can proceed where plaintiffs put forward evidence that the platform knew CMI was altered or removed and knew or had reason to know such distribution would facilitate or conceal infringement.
- Lanham Act claims survived notwithstanding the Supreme Court's precedential 2003 decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., as the trademarks at issue were used in connection with the distribution and display of the institution's branded instructional files, rather than merely the creative content embedded in those files.
- State-law claims sounding in unjust enrichment, common-law unfair competition, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) can be preempted by the Copyright Act when they do not add elements qualitatively different from rights within the general scope of copyright.
- The defendant did not seek to dismiss direct copyright infringement at the pleading stage; those core claims remain central to litigation strategy.
- Pre-suit enforcement efforts (e.g., specific notices identifying URLs, descriptions of how platform features impede IP policing) can be important evidence for standing and scienter.
- Branding and metadata matter. The handling of logos, copyright notices, watermarks, and author/title metadata during upload, preview, unlock, and download stages can materially affect liability exposure.
The Court's Core Rulings
The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on three state-law claims—CUTPA, unjust enrichment, and common-law unfair competition—finding them preempted by the Copyright Act because they did not add extra elements qualitatively distinct from exclusive rights protected under federal law. In contrast, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's DMCA and Lanham Act claims. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the platform provided false CMI or removed/altered CMI and distributed materials with the requisite scienter, including after receiving detailed notices of alleged infringement. The court also concluded that the plaintiff's trademark claims were not squarely foreclosed by Dastar, distinguishing uses of marks on branded instructional documents from cases involving unprotected creative works in the public domain.
Earlier in the case, on a partial motion to dismiss, the court denied dismissal of certain § 1202(a) DMCA claims related to copyright notices and watermarks. Notably, the defendant did not seek to dismiss the plaintiff's direct copyright infringement claims at the pleading stage, and those claims remain part of the case.
The DMCA Lens: CMI, Previews, and Watermarks
The DMCA protects "copyright management information" broadly, including information conveyed in connection with a work identifying the title, author, copyright owner, and terms of use, as well as links or symbols that point to such information. The court treated the platform's surrounding overlays, banners, and watermarks as CMI-adjacent context that could mislead users about source or ownership when combined with the suppression or removal of original attribution and metadata. The platform's staged lifecycle—upload, preview, unlock, and download—provided a factual framework: previews allegedly blurred content and hid visible CMI, unlocked views allegedly withheld original metadata, and downloads allegedly added platform watermarks and substituted or stripped original metadata. Those facts, when coupled with pre-suit notices, sufficed to create jury questions on both the falsity and the dual scienter required under § 1202.
Trademarks on Instructional Materials after Dastar
The court distinguished claims attacking confusion as to the origin of branded instructional files from Dastar's prohibition on using the Lanham Act to police authorship or attribution of creative content. Where the documents displayed or distributed included the institution's marks and were presented in a commercial environment that could imply association, sponsorship, or approval, the court determined that a jury could assess the likelihood of confusion. In this context, the plaintiff's registered marks on syllabi, assignments, and exams were treated as source identifiers for the institution's educational services and materials, not merely the underlying creative expression.
Preemption of State-Law Theories
The court dismissed unjust enrichment, common-law unfair competition, and CUTPA claims as preempted because they targeted the same conduct underlying the copyright claims: the reproduction, distribution, and display of protected instructional content on the platform. Absent extra elements such as breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, or other conduct qualitatively distinct from core copyright rights, those state-law claims could not proceed alongside federal copyright claims.
Compliance and Enforcement Implications
The ruling highlights the evidentiary value of detailed takedown notices and concrete demonstrations of how platform architecture impedes IP policing. For institutions, documenting specific URLs, demonstrating watermark and metadata manipulation, and preserving examples of previews versus unlocked or downloaded files strengthens both standing and scienter arguments. For platforms, the decision serves as a cautionary note: design choices that obscure attribution, alter metadata, or promote platform branding in place of original CMI can materially increase DMCA exposure.
Practical Advice
To reduce risk and put your institution in the strongest position to enforce rights promptly and effectively, consider the following measures:
- Register copyrights in important instructional materials. Registration before infringement occurs maximizes remedies and simplifies enforcement, including the availability of statutory damages and attorneys' fees in appropriate cases.
- Confirm institutional ownership of instructional content. Ensure faculty employment agreements, contractor terms, and academic policies clearly vest ownership of teaching materials in the institution, or include appropriate work-made-for-hire and assignment provisions.
- Prominently brand materials. Place the institution's name and logo on syllabi, assignments, exams, slide decks, and other key documents. Maintain clear copyright notices and consistent branding to reinforce source identification and deter misuse.
- Adopt and publicize clear policies. Institutional policies should instruct faculty, staff, and students that instructional materials may not be copied, uploaded, or shared with any third party—including online platforms—without express authorization from the institution. Ensure policies are accessible, reinforced through training, and supported by enforcement protocols.
Institutions that implement these steps are better positioned to deter online theft, act quickly when it occurs, and prevail on claims grounded in the DMCA, the Lanham Act, and copyright law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
