The clean hands doctrine says that "who comes into equity must come with clean hands", so if the plaintiff has dirty hands, their claim is to be denied. But publishing material that is in the public domain does not dirty one's hands, and copyright law does not impose an obligation to notify potential copiers that you have a legal right to certain aspects of a work made available to the public (the copyright notice is no longer necessary). So I see nothing in A's actions that dirties their hands.

The clean hands doctrine says that "who comes into equity must come with clean hands", so if the plaintiff has dirty hands, their claim is to be denied. But publishing material that is in the public domain does not dirty one's hands, and copyright law does not impose an obligation to notify potential copiers that you have a legal right to certain aspects of a work made available to the public (the copyright notice is no longer necessary). So I see nothing in A's actions that dirties their hands.

The misuse doctrine is potentially applicable in copyright law. See MGM v. Grokster

Generally, the misuse defense prevents a copyright holder that has misused its copyright from enforcing the copyright in a court of equity. See Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970, 978 (4th Cir. 1990).

However,

The threshold question is what conduct by the copyright holder suffices to trigger the misuse defense... the misuse inquiry focuses on "whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of the public policy embodied in the grant of a copyright."