You… did… read the article, right? The judge pointed out that the claim was spurious from the start on the grounds that what was copied - the look and feel, couldn’t possibly meet the standard for copyright:
Examining the cover of each work, for example, Plaintiff may claim copyright protection in the unique, rainbow-colored rings and tower on the cover of Go! Plaintiff, however, cannot claim copyright over any disc-shaped item tilted at a particular angle; to grant Plaintiff such broad protection would foreclose a photographer from taking a photo of the Space Needle just so, a result that is clearly untenable under—and antithetical to—copyright law.
I believe you are conflating trademark law and copyright law here.
