Articles Posted in Copyright Litigation

|

clothing-design-copyright-attorney-trademark-lawyer-evr.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Copyright and trademark attorneys for EV.R, Inc., dba Skinny Minnie, filed a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit, in the Central District Of California (Los Angeles Division), against Anama, LLC. EVR is a clothing designer and manufacturer whose garments and clothing designs feature copyrightable works which have been registered with the US Copyright Office. EVR states that it created several unique designs which it exhibited to retailers at numerous tradeshows and in its own showrooms throughout the United States. EVR has also filed trademark application to register its two designs, both featuring skulls, with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

EVR alleges that it recently discovered Defendant’s sales of women’s tops and shirts featuring designs identical to and infringing on EVR’s designs and trademarks. The complaint states that “Defendants have willfully and intentionally infringed EVR’s copyrights and trademarks by slavishly copying, selling, publicly displaying copies of EVR’s works or works substantially or strikingly similar thereto, namely, the Infringing Products, without EVR’s consent or pemission.” EVR requests either actual or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504, in addition to their costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Also, EVR requests damages under the Lanham Act. The case is titled: EV.R, Inc. v. Anama, LLC, CV08-06348 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

copyright-attorney-cards-figurines-los-angeles.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Plaintiffs San Francis Imports and Basevi, through their attorney, filed a copyright infringement, Section 17200 unfair competition, and trade dress infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles against NG Figurine Wholesale, WG Trading Corp., and Gary Ngo. The complaint alleges that from 1935 to 1950, Cromo, N.B., an Italian corporation, created artwork with the assistance of numerous artists, which copyrights in the artwork were transferred to and registered by Cromo. In turn, Cromo assigned licensing rights in the United States to Basevi, which license was executed with San Francis.

The complaint alleges that “Defendants, and each of them through its (sic.) employees copied Plaintiff’s (sic.) Holy Cards and caused to be manufactured and offered for sale to the public Holy Cards which is (sic.) not only substantially similar, but is strikingly similar to Plaintiffs’ Holy Cards.” The case is titled San Francis Imports v. NG Figurine Wholesale, CV08-06252 RGK (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for HighDefinition.net, Inc. (“HDNI”), owned by award-winning broadcast reporter Robert Tur, filed a copyright infringement and breach of contract lawsuit, at the Los Angeles Federal District Court, which seeks to enjoin further usage of its footage. The complaint states that Mr. Tur pioneered the use of helicopters in covering live news events, which, at least in Los Angeles, provides for at least one car chase per day. HDNI has registered its copyrights for its aerial footage with the U.S. Copyright Office.

los-angeles-copyright-attorney-video-television.jpgIn 2007, the complaint alleges that HDNI and Rive Gauche Entertainment Television (“RGET”) entered into an agreement, whereby HDNI produced and RGET distributed a television program about police car chases, titled “Why They Run,” which aired on MSNBC. Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into an agreement for the production and distribution of “Nowhere to Run,” under which agreement RGET was to pay HDNI $450,000, in addition to licensing fees for the use of news clips from its library. The complaint alleges that “RGET has breached the March 7, 2008 Agreement by, among other things, failing to pay HDNI at least $400,000 owed under the agreement. In addition, RGTV has licensed and/or delivered to third parties [the] copyrighted material without [Plaintiff’s] consent, much less its written consent.” Plaintiff requests either actual or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504, in addition to their costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: HighDefinition.net, Inc. v. Rive Gauche Entertainment Television, Inc., CV08-05795 GHK (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for SATA GmbH, a German corporation, filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act 43(a) unfair competition, and false advertising lawsuit, at the Los Angeles Federal District Court, to prevent internet based sales of its paint spray tools/guns. Sata owns numerous USPTO registered trademarks in addition to unregistered common law trademarks. SATA’s paint spray tools have been used in auto repair body shops, the automotive industry, and the wood-working industry for more than 23 years.

trademark-attorney-tools-los-angeles-sata.jpgDan-Am is an independent company that is the exclusive authorized importer and sole initial distributor of SATA products in the United States. “Through Dan-Am, SATA-designed and manufactured products are ultimately made available to warehouse distributors and jobbers and through such distributors and jobbers to end customers.” SATA asserts that it can maintain better supervision and quality control over its products because authorized distributors “are required by their contracts with Dan-Am to participate in a specified minimum of instructions and training activities involving the safe use and maintenance of SATA products. . . The internet cannot displace the individual services offered through the Authorized Distributor program.”

SATA alleges that Defendants use the SATA trademarks on their numerous websites to sell, without authorization, SATA’s paint spray tools on the Internet “by approaching Authorized Distributors for the purpose of obtaining SATA products for Internet resale.” The Defendants are also accused of engaging “in the wholesale copying of copyrighted photographs and text found at sata.com for the purpose of having material to support their unauthorized sales free of charge.” The complaint accuses the following websites of infringement: spraygunworld.com, toolparadise.com, spraygunindustry.com, mytoolchest.com, discounttoolsnthings.com, tptoolworld.com, airbrush4less.com, tptoolbox.com, and uniqueuniverse.com. The case is titled SATA GmbH & Co. KG, et al. v. David Nakatsu, et al., CV08-0560 ODW (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for Arter Neon & LED Sign, Inc. filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Central District Of California (Los Angeles Division) to prevent sales of infringing products imported from China. Arter is a designer, manufacturer and importer of neon and LED signs and artwork, whose products are displayed on its website. Certain of its works have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, including its “Scissors” LED design, and others are pending.

china-copyright-attorney-led-sign-arter.jpgIn 2007, Arter entered into a non-exclusive license agreement with Defendant Touch of Asia, whereby Defendant was permitted to distribute certain of Arter’s copyrighted designs and was to forward all orders for products to Arter. Further, Defendant allegedly expressly agreed not to manufacture products containing the copyrighted designs itself or to obtain them from other sources. In June of 2008, when Arter’s representatives were delivering products to Defendant’s location, they allegedly noticed products on display that were not manufactured by Arter, but infringed on the copyrights. Defendant allegedly stated that it had the products manufactured in China because it was less expensive than buying them from Plaintiff. Arter terminated the licensing agreement immediately and asked Defendant to cease selling the allegedly infringing product. When Defendant refused, this lawsuit followed. Plaintiff requests either actual or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504, in addition to their costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Arter Neon & LED Sign, Inc. v. Touch of Asia Spa Equipment, Inc., CV08-05446 DSF (Central District of California 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for Seoul Broadcasting Systems (“SBS”) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Central District Of California (Los Angeles Division), accusing Korea International Satellite Broadcasting (“KISB”) of distributing infringing copyrighted works and sought a Temporary Restraining Order from the court. SBS’s parent company creates and produces Korean-language television programming which is initially exhibited in Korea and then provided to SBS for television and satellite distribution in the United States. In turn, SBS grants licenses to third-parties in the U.S. to distribute certain of the programs via satellite television.

los-angeles-copyright-attorney-tro-korean-kisb.jpgIn 2004, SBS and KISB entered into a series of written agreements whereby SBS agreed to supply KISB with copyrighted programs for distribution on KISB’s satellite channels. When the agreements terminated on May 31, 2008, SBS expressed to KISB its intent not to renew the distribution agreement and gave KISB until June 15, 2008 to cease distribution of the programs. KISB allegedly did not cease distribution of the programs and SBS filed suit seeking a TRO over six weeks later.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides that a TRO may be granted “without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” The circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO are extremely limited. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39 (1974).

Continue reading ›

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for several motion production companies filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Central District Of California (Los Angeles Division) against movierumor.com. Universal Studios, Warner Bros., and New Line allege that several of their copyrighted movies – some of which are currently in theaters – are being infringed through the distribution and performance of the same on movierumor.com’s website or third-party websites which are linked to movierumor’s website: “Movierumor is a for-profit ‘one-stop-shop’ for infringing copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Specifically, Defendants post, organize, search for, identify, collect and index links to infringing material that is available on third-party websites . . . Defendants profit from their misconduct by displaying advertisements adjacent to the infringing content (including Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works) that plays on their site.”

For research purposes only, I visited movierumor.com, clicked on the Batman: The Dark Night link, and was freely able to watch the movie on a pop-up website, although the video quality was lacking. If the MPAA is reading this, I still have my $12 theater ticket for Batman. Here’s a screenshot of the video and advertising:

copyright-attorney-in-los-angeles-movierumor.jpg

The complaint states that “in furtherance of creating and posting the index of links to infringing content, which Movierumor makes available to its users at the click of a mouse, the website allows users to submit new links to infringing copyrighted works and to report broken links . . . Defendants exercise control over the selection and organization of the links to infringing content available on their website . . . By virtue of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants knowingly promote, participate in, facilitate, assist, enable, materially contribute to, encourage, and induce copyright infringement, thereby secondarily infringing the copyrights in Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.” The Plaintiffs allege that they gave notice to Defendants regarding the allegedly infringing videos and asked them to cease displaying the same, but Defendants have failed to do so. Plaintiffs request either actual or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504, in addition to their costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Universal City Studios Productions, LLLP v. Movierumor.com, CV08-04931 RSWL (Central District of California 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for dietary supplement company Iwin Labs filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, in the Central District Of California (Los Angeles Division), accusing rival nutritional company of copying its website design. The complaint asserts that in June of 2008, Iwin Labs developed and created an acai berry dietary supplement and created a website that promotes and sells the supplement. Based upon Iwin’s success, the Defendants allegedly “proceeded to copy Iwin Labs’ website and product labels, word for word, color for color, image for image (though at times making uninspired attempts to be ‘just a little’ different, but still most definitely similar enough to steal customers from Iwin Labs and wreak havoc on Iwin Labs’ customer relations).” The following are screen shots of the parties’ websites as represented in the complaint:

copyright-attorney-central-district-of-california-dietary.jpg

The complaint continues, “what is worse, Defendants not only copied and otherwise misappropriated Iwin Labs’ intellectual property, they made an active and concerted effort to fool the public by using the exact same online marketers and advertising agents that Iwin Labs had previously used, thereby greatly increasing the probability that repeat visitors looking for the Iwin Labs website would end up on Defendants’ nearly identical web pages.” Plaintiff requests statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). Plaintiff also requests that the court order the defendants to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Iwin Labs, LLC v. Crush, LLC, CV08-04695 MMM (Central District of California 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) provides an increase in the statutory damages to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be intentional. However, the Plaintiff’s state causes of action for statutory and common law unfair competition appear to be preempted by the Copyright Act and should be dismissed.

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for Louis Vuitton filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125), counterfeiting, and copyright infringement complaint at the Federal District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles Division) to protect its purse designs from being copied. The luxury goods manufacturer began selling its luggage in France in 1854 and in the United States in 1893. In 1896, Louis Vuitton created the LV monogram with three motifs (shown below) and registered it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1932. Louis Vuitton has additional design/logo trademarks that are also registered with the USPTO. Further, Louis Vuitton owns certain copyright registrations in the U.S. Copyright Office covering its Multicolor Monogram design.

purse-design-copyright-trademark-protection-louis.jpgDefendants are alleged to have counterfeited and infringed on Louis Vuitton’s trademarks and copyrighted works by selling unauthorized goods, such as purses and handbags. Louis Vuitton alleges that “the activities of Defendants complained of herein constitute willful and intentional counterfeiting and infringement of the Louis Vuitton Trademarks and Copyrighted Work; are in total disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights and were commenced and have continued in spite of Defendants’ knowledge that the use of the Louis Vuitton Trademarks and Copyrighted Work, or copies or imitations thereof, was and is in direct contravention of Plaintiff’s rights.” The case is titled Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mido Trading, Inc., et al., CV 08-04405 DDP (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: The defendants’ website, midotrading.com, has been taken offline at the time of this post. That does not appear to be a good omen for defendants. I previously posted (Click Here) about the Louis Vuitton and “Chewie Vuiton” parody case, where the defendant’s parodical use of the LV Monogram was found to not infringe on Louis Vuitton’s trademarks or copyrights.

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for several plaintiffs, including Sony and Gwen Stefani, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles accusing Alhambra based Havana House Cigars & Lounge of publicly performing copyrighted music without a license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. The complaint alleges that on January 11, 2008, presumably when their investigator was at the Lounge, and on several occasions thereafter, the five copyrighted musical compositions were publicly played and performed. Plaintiffs assert that the Lounge will continue to publicly play and perform these songs unless it is enjoined by the Court.

los-angeles-copyright-attorney-alhambra-havana.jpgThe complaint alleges that ASCAP, on behalf of the copyright owners, contacted the defendant and informed him that a copyright license was needed in order to publicly perform the copyrighted music at the Lounge. The defendant, however, has allegedly not agreed to pay for the license and has continued to play the songs at issue. Plaintiffs request statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $30,000.00 and not less than $750.00 for each copyrighted song. Plaintiffs also request that the court order the defendant to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Sony/ATV Harmony v. Alfred Campano, CV08-03947 PA (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) provides an increase in the statutory damages to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be intentional. Also, if a restaurant or public establishment unreasonably believed that it was exempt from licensing requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 110(5), the copyright plaintiff, in addition to other damages under section 504, will be entitled to two times the license fee which it should have paid for the preceding three-year period. Because of the varying affiliations between record companies and the licensing societies, a license from each of the following licensing societies must be obtained to cover the music owned by the various recording companies:

Continue reading ›