Dozier Internet Law on Copyright

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2012 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2012-01-19T08:59:00.000-08:00

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

OUTDOOR IDENTITIES, LLC v. FISHOUFLAGE APPAREL, LLC, ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN (GREEN BAY)
1:11-CV-01161-WCG
FILED: 12/22/2011

When you have a business relationship there is an expectation of fair dealing. When you break up it can be a lot like a personal divorce in the sense of complexity and emotions. Make sure you comply with contracts or understandings and agreements in order to avoid the backlash of a nasty “divorce”.

The Plaintiff is a leading manufacturer and marketer of quality fishing gear. The Defendants were retailers of the Plaintiff’s goods. The Plaintiff terminated the affiliation with the Defendant retailers but the Defendants continued to use the website with the copyright protected materials owned by the Plaintiff, despite numerous requests to stop such use.

Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin, copyright infringement, and breach of contract. The prayer for relief requests Defendants to be enjoined from engaging in any further infringement and to pay for statutory and treble damages, attorneys’ fees, statutory damages and any other just relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1539.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-12-22T10:20:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

FRASERSIDE IP, LLC v. SKY ALLIANCE GROUP, INC., ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA (CENTRAL DIVISION)
3:11-CV-03065-MWB
FILED: 11/22/2011

This is another one of the “high volume” lawsuits brought by the adult industry against many defendants. The embarrassment of being identified as a defendant usually generates a settlement payment of a couple of thousand dollars per defendant.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the copyrights for adult videos. The Defendants have allegedly misappropriated the adult videos for sale to the members of their website.

Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement and false designation. Plaintiff requests Defendant to be enjoined from engaging in any further unauthorized infringement, to account for and pay for damages, attorneys’ fees, statutory damages and any other just relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1537.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-11-15T12:06:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

IN RE: SSC GROUP, LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
1:11-MC-23891
FILED: 10/27/2011

Some states permit an action to be filed prior to filing a lawsuit that permits certain limited discovery. This often allows a Plaintiff to get a much better idea as to how to proceed going forward and it can be a valuable tool to use.

This action was brought to permit pre-lawsuit testimony surrounding an alleged BitTorrent file transfer group.

Petitioner desires to perpetuate the testimony of proper Defendant who has not yet been identified. Petitioner expects to obtain testimony from the affected Internet service providers concerning the personally identifying information for each of its Internet service subscribers whose accounts were used to infringe upon Petitioner’s copyrights. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1532.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-10-31T07:42:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

RON TOMA v. MOTLEY CRUE, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-06766
FILED: 9/26/2011

If you as a business are going to use images or content generated by third parties make sure that you have an exclusive or non-exclusive license, or the ownership of the material, before publishing it online.

Plaintiff is the owner of certain images of the band Motley Crue and the Defendants have been sued for allegedly publishing the copyrighted images on the Internet without licensing the right to do so.

Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement and breach of contract. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests for Defendant to be enjoined from engaging in any further unauthorized infringement, to account for and pay for damages, attorneys’ fees, statutory damages and any other just relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1525.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-09-28T12:52:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

STEVEN B. WOLTMANN v. CHICAGO GRIDIRON LLC, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-05994
FILED: 8/29/2011

Make sure before you use any image that you have that it is either purely from the public domain, owned by you, or properly licensed for use.

Woltmann was a photographer for a football team and this suit alleges that his images are being used without authorization by a successor team and football league.

Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, conversion, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requests an accounting of Defendants’ records and sums due to Plaintiff and an award of other remedies the Court deems reasonable and just. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1520.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-08-04T12:02:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

MICHAEL EASTMAN and MICHAEL EASTMAN IMAGES, INC. v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
4:11-CV-01296
FILED: 7/26/2011

Copyright infringement isn’t just for the Internet. Here you have a situation in which a major company apparently used the creative work of a third party without “clearing” its use. Remember not to use images you find on the Internet since they may be copyright protected and owned by a third party.

The Plaintiff claims to be one of the world’s leading contemporary photographers. The Defendants allegedly used his creative work as a backdrop for one of the major scenes in the TV show “Million Dollar Decorators”. This is a television series broadcast on BRAVO TV.

Plaintiffs allege copyright infringement, violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, common law fraud, rescission, and breach of contract. The court is requested to grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any further relief the court deems just. Dozier Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1517.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-07-06T09:29:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

DENTAL WEBSMITH, INC. v. GUSTAVO COUTIN
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA (NEW ORLEANS)
2:11-CV-01485
FILED: 6/22/2011

There are many instances in which small professional offices hire a developer to build a website and the developer goes out and “borrows” another website and holds it out as its own creative work. If you start using such a site you are liable for copyright infringement. One more reason to make sure that the web developer you hire has a long history of ethical work.

Dental WebSmith develops websites for dentists. The Defendant allegedly misappropriated a website built for another dentist and still owned by Dental WebSmith.

The lawsuit alleges violation of copyright law and Dental WebSmith requests actual damages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1507.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-06-13T12:01:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

FINITO SERVICES LLC dba SUNSPOT INNS, RESORTS &VACATION RENTALS v. CHARLEE & ASSOCIATES, LTD., ET AL.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)
2:11-CV-00776
FILED: 5/06/2011

Some people think that when they receive a demand letter to remove images for copyright infringement or to stop using a name because of alleged trademark infringement just doing what is requested will solve the problem. This case is a good example of the fact that damages accrue when there is copyright or trademark infringement and often times a demand to stop use of images or a name is followed by a demand for damages. When you get a demand letter communicate with the opposing party, come to an agreement as to how to resolve the matter in its totality, and only then proceed to stop alleged improper use of images or names.

Sunspot is a network of independently owned inns, resorts, and vacation rental management companies. Defendants are alleged to have taken photographs from the Plaintiff’s websites and used them on their own competing rental websites. Defendants have removed the images but have refused to compensate Sunspot for the alleged infringement.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an order to destroy all infringing materials in the Defendants’ possession, compensatory damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, and Plaintiff’s litigation expenses including attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1493.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-05-05T12:03:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

TROY COPPOLA v. PRETTY LIKE ME, INC. and DOES
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SANTA ANA)
8:11-CV-00535
FILED: 4/07/2011

We are seeing a lot of situations in which automated programs have been written to retrieve mass quantities of images for use on another party’s website. The bottom line is that if you cannot absolutely confirm the image is in the public domain you should not use it for any purpose. More and more lawsuits are being filed over the mass misappropriation of images without even using the DMCA takedown notice process or otherwise providing the Defendant with notice. And it is important to note that the law does not require such notice. In other words, the first idea you could have that your use of someone else’s images has created a problem is a visit from a local sheriff serving you with a lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is a sole proprietor doing business as “Life’s Vigor” and created original works of digitally enhanced photographs that number in the thousands. The Defendant is a New York corporation who allegedly copied the Plaintiff’s images and is displaying approximately 4,000 of those images on its website.

Defendants are accused of federal copyright infringement, common law unfair competition, and violation of California Business and Professional Code §§ 17200 et seq. Remedies requested include injunctive relief, actual damages, an accounting and disgorgement of Defendants’ profits, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1488.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: April 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-04-21T09:34:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

LESAFFRE YEAST CORPORATION v. FERMATRIX, LLC and PETER KRASUCKI
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI (ST. LOUIS)
4:11-CV-00501
FILED: 03/16/2011

In this case the Defendant is a former employee who allegedly signed a rather extensive employment contract which contained non-disclosure and non-compete agreements. Remember that non-compete agreements are often found to be non-enforceable. And even if you have a contract preventing a former employee from using your property there obviously is no guarantee he will refrain from doing so. Contracts in and of themselves do not create a bullet-proof environment and sometimes lawsuits simply cannot be avoided.

The Plaintiff provides products and services to a variety of customers in the food and beverage industry relating to yeast products and yeast applications. The Defendant is a former employee who formed a corporation to compete against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants’ website contains extensive materials owned by the Plaintiff and are copyright protected.

The Plaintiff alleges trademark/trade dress infringement, violation of copyright, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of contract. Damages requested include injunctive relief against the Defendant along with compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any further relief the court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1481.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-03-29T08:23:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

STRATEGIA DESIGN, LLC v. COGNITIVE SCIENCE LLC
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (ALEXANDRIA)
1:11-CV-00190
FILED: 2/23/2011

The Defendant may be liable for copyright infringement, but it will all depend upon the wording of the contract between the parties. In some instances the contract only provides for the recovery of payment and the license arises prior to full payment being made, which therefore vests the right to use the content in the Defendant. A well drafted contract will always make the license to use the content, or the transfer or assignment of the content, subject to full payment and full compliance with the terms of the contract.

Strategia Design is a brand consulting company that specializes in marketing. The Defendant is a company that specializes in providing weight-loss solutions. The Plaintiff is alleged to have provided over $100,000 worth of website content development services and the Plaintiff has allegedly not paid for the content and services.

Counts in the lawsuit include copyright infringement of article designs, copyright infringement of website content, copyright infringement of logo design, breach of contract for Article Design Master Contract, breach of contract for Content Design Master Contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting and disgorgement of profits, statutory damages, actual damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and any further relief the Court deems proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1475.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-02-22T11:08:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

DAVID PAUL LARSON v. LEOPARD FILMS U.S.A., LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:11-CV-00503
FILED: 1/25/2011

Whenever you are licensing rights to use an image make sure you look at the specific terms. Sometimes there will be a limitation on the length of time you can use the image. In this case there are allegedly limitations relating to the medium in which the images can be used. You have to look to the terms of license to really figure out what you are getting when you pay to use images.

The Plaintiff is a professional photographer who licensed the right to use certain images to Defendant Leopard Films. The film company has allegedly used the images beyond the scope of the license agreement with the photographer.

Defendant is accused of copyright infringement and the Plaintiff is requesting actual damages, maximum statutory damages, prejudgment interest, and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1471.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-02-16T08:30:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

WELLOSOPHY CORPORATION v. HERO NUTRITION, LLC and DAVID BARTON
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2:10-CV-02229
FILED: 12/22/2010

Before you go spending a small fortune on litigating a federal court case over copyright infringement, consider using a lawyer to issue a DMCA takedown notice and disabling the website and your competitor’s financial transaction processor and interrupting other key business partner relationships. This can be a much more economical and effective approach than undertaking litigation.

Plaintiff and Defendant appear to be selling nutraceuticals. Defendants are alleged to have copied the Plaintiffs’ website and used it in the marketing of its products.

Wellosophy Corporation alleges copyright infringement, direct copyright infringement (public display), and unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices. They request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of the infringing domain, control of all infringing materials and content, actual damages, an award of Defendants’ profits, and other relief the Court deems appropriate. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1462.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2010 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-02-09T07:48:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

MAVRIX PHOTO, INC. v. DAILY MAIL OF LONDON, ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:10-CV-09045
FILED: 11/23/2010

This case is a good reminder that all because images are on the Internet doesn’t mean that they can be used by you in any manner. Photographs are creative works that are most often protected by copyright rights that arise at the time the photograph is created.

Mavrix is a prominent celebrity photography agency which licenses its photographs to some of the world’s leading newspaper, television programs, and magazines. The Defendant is the publisher of a worldwide online newspaper. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant keeps taking and using its photographs without licensing and paying for the use. The photographs include those of Pamela Anderson, Roger Daltrey, Halle Berry, Kate Hudson, and other Hollywood celebrities.

The lawsuit claims copyright infringement and requests permanent injunctive relief, statutory damages, an accounting of Defendants’ profits, actual damages, and other such relief the Court deems appropriate. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1456.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2010 - Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-02-02T09:31:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

SCHERBA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO (CLEVELAND)
1:10-CV-02288
FILED: 10/07/2010

If the allegations are true Google made a mistake and is going to be paying a license fee for the use of the image together with attorneys’ fees. Since Google’s alleged use occurred after the registration of the copyright, the law allows the Plaintiff to recover both attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages that could go into six figures. The rule of thumb in these cases is to settle for three times the license fee that would have been charged plus attorneys’ fees expended to date. Remember that all because an image is available on the Internet doesn’t mean that you have the right to use it.

The Plaintiff is a manufacturer and retailer of inflatables for business promotions and displays. Plaintiff alleges that Google copied the copyrighted image of the Plaintiff’s “Gorilla inflatable” and is using it in advertisements for Google AdWords.

Scherba Industries claims copyright infringement and requests injunctive relief, declaratory relief, actual damages, the maximum allowable statutory damages, along with costs and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1450.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-01-26T07:19:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

FUTURE BLUE, INC. v. DOES 1 – 300
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:10-CV-06256
FILED: 9/29/2010

This lawsuit is against “John Does”. If you do not know the party that has stolen your intellectual property (copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, etc.) you can still file a lawsuit against unknown Defendants and then use subpoenas and other discovery techniques to identify the proper parties.

Future Blue is a producer of adult entertainment content and the Defendants are alleged to be distributing and offering its creative works through the BitTorrent method of distributing data over the Internet. The Defendants are alleged to be uploading and downloading torrent files containing copyright protected content of the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement and requests injunctive relief against all of the Defendants along with actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1445.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

2011-01-18T10:48:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. MICHAEL A. NYSTROM
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-01490
FILED: 8/31/2010

It is important to remember that all online content is not free. Be careful about the content you use on your website and on your web properties, and make sure that the party providing the content has licensed the right to use it, or make sure that the content is truly in the public domain and available for free copying and distribution.

Righthaven is a Nevada corporation and apparently the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It has been filing numerous lawsuits against parties who have published its articles online. The Defendant is an individual who allegedly owns a website that has an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal on its site.

Righthaven alleges copyright infringement and requests that the Court order preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of Defendant domain name to Plaintiff, statutory damages, costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1449.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

2010-08-10T08:30:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

ROOM & BOARD, INC. v. SIT DOWN NEW YORK, INC.
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
0:10-CV-02650
FILED: 6/28/2010

You do not need a copyright registration to pursue many of the remedies to stop copyright infringement.

Room & Board is a corporation involved in the design, marketing, sales and distribution of high quality home furnishings. The Plaintiff publishes an extensive catalog and maintains a website which the Defendant is alleged to have copied for its own use in competing against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement of the Room & Board website content and copyright infringement of the Room & Board 2010 Annual Collection Catalog. The Prayer for Relief requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, statutory damages, enhanced damages, an accounting of sales and profits, costs and attorneys’ fees, and all other relief the Court deems just and necessary. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1437.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

2010-06-28T10:04:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. RON FUTRELL
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00813
FILED: 5/28/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. BISIG IMPACT GROUP, INC. AND AARON FRISBEE
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00814
FILED: 5/28/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. ODDS ON RACING, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00816
FILED: 5/28/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. SWADEEP NIGAM
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00795
FILED: 5/27/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. OZEAN GROUP
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00798
FILED: 5/27/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. ANDRE MCCOLLOUGH
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00799
FILED: 5/27/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. BARRY MEYER AND TUFF-N-UFF PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00794
FILED: 5/27/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. GOFF ASSOCIATES AND PATRICK GOFF
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00742
FILED: 5/20/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. REAL MONEY SPORTS, INC. AND ADAM H. MEYER
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00734
FILED: 5/19/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. PORTSIDE, INC. AND BARRY COHEN
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00740
FILED: 5/19/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. DR. SHEZAD MALIK LAW FIRM P.C.
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00636
FILED: 5/04/2010

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. KILLERFROGS.COM INC.
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00635
FILED: 5/04/2010

If it’s on the Internet, it’s free. Of course not. Creative work still has copyright protection and if you think that the only downside to taking content is having to pull it down when you get a DMCA takedown notice, these twelve lawsuits give you the bigger downside of such a practice. A DMCA takedown notice is not required, and you can simply be sued straight out in federal court for copyright infringement.

Righthaven, LLC is a Nevada Limited Liability Company and published an article online. Defendant Futtrell is alleged to have taken the article and republished it for his own use as an online news item. At least twelve similar lawsuits have been filed by Righthaven, LLC against parties using its content.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the infringing domain name be transferred to Plaintiff, and an award of statutory damages along with costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any further relief the Court deems appropriate. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1431.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: April 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

2010-05-19T08:28:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

ANY TEST FRANCHISING, INC. v. LAB TEST DEPOT, LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (MIAMI)
1:10-CV-21337
FILED: 4/26/2010

This case obviously involves both trade secret misappropriation issues and copyright infringement. It’s unfortunately common for web developers to “borrow” content from websites, and most often this just results in the service of a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice or a cease and desist demand letter that results in the content being removed from the web. However, when there is more than simply copying, and there are competitive aspects to the infringement, it is much more likely that a business’s first notice might come by service of a federal lawsuit. It’s a good time to check the contract with your web developers and make sure that when you order customized creative works you aren’t getting cut and paste copies of websites already existing on the web.

Any Test Franchising, Inc. owns and sells the franchise rights to an array of laboratory tests distributed through retail locations. Lab Test Depot, LLC, the Defendant in this case, has allegedly copied much of the content from the Plaintiff’s website. The principals of the Defendant allegedly attended a “discovery day” put on by the Plaintiff and signed an extensive non-disclosure agreement but the Defendant did not enter into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff.

Defendant is accused of misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential and proprietary business information, federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, federal copyright infringement, trademark infringement under Florida common law, and unfair competition under Florida common law. The Prayer for Relief includes requests for temporary, interlocutory, and permanent injunctive relief, general and compensatory damages, actual damages, incidental, special, consequential, and exemplary damages, damages for the unjust enrichment caused by Defendant’s misappropriation and infringement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief the Court deems just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1418.

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, INC.
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00485
FILED: 4/07/2010

This is another form of an “attack” or “sucks” site. By not targeting a company directly, but instead appearing to present a “corrupt” organization clearing house, this type of attack can be even more successful in influencing public opinion about a business. The doctrine of “fair use” allows a certain amount of copying in the context of publishing commentary about the content. The issue in this case will be whether the copying of content was appropriate, necessary and reasonable in order to criticize the content or the organization.

What does free speech allow one to do online? Oftentimes intellectual property laws clash with the free speech doctrine. If false information is being published about your business, then you may have a defamation claim. If clear statements of opinion are being published that are disparaging, oftentimes businesses will turn to either trademark, copyright, or trade secret law to attack the problem.

The Plaintiff is a Nevada limited-liability company apparently involved in a political disagreement with the Defendant, a non-profit corporation with its principle place of business in Washington, D.C. The Defendant organization allegedly maintains a website at www.crewsmostcorrupt.org which, at least in part, targets the Plaintiff organization. Plaintiff alleges that the CREW website contains extensive copyright protected materials owned exclusively by the Plaintiff.

Righthaven alleges copyright infringement and requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, for Defendant to provide Plaintiff with electronic or hard copies of all evidence and documentation of the work, contact information for any person CREW has communicated with regarding the work, financial evidence related to the work, transfer of domains to Righthaven, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any further relief the Court deems appropriate. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1422.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

2010-04-07T06:16:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

SANDRA WILSON v. MICHELLE PARRISH AND ALAN MAIER
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA (FORT WAYNE)
1:10-CV-00089
FILED: 3/31/2010

It does not appear that the Plaintiff used a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice to pull down the infringing content. We are dealing with this type of issue on several fronts. It would seem advisable to serve a DMCA takedown notice to solve the problem of copyright infringement without the necessity for expensive litigation. The DMCA takedown notice process exists to make it easy to deal with relatively small problems like this. One needs to be very careful about the content and the strength of the copyright infringement claim because attorneys’ fees can be awarded against a party serving an unjustified DMCA takedown notice. But it is most often the wisest approach.

The individual Plaintiff, Sandra Wilson, is a resident of Tennessee and the Defendants are residents of Indiana. This lawsuit claims that the Defendants have placed on their websites designs owned by the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement and requests actual damages, an accounting of profits, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1415.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

2010-03-19T07:13:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

SPECIALTY CATALOG CORPORATION v. B2B WEB VENTURES, LLC
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSSETTS (BOSTON)
1:10-CV-10303
FILED: 2/22/2010

There is no chance of proving trademark rights in such a generic term. The problem with asserting claims that are exceptionally weak is that your lawyer’s cease and desist letter can be met with a declaratory judgment lawsuit against you in the other party’s backyard. Don’t expect, ask, or allow your attorney to just file “cease and desist” and demand letters or you too may find yourself on the receiving end of a federal lawsuit.

The Plaintiff operated a website at “wig.com”. The Defendants operates a website at “wigs.com”. The Defendant is accusing the Plaintiff of trademark infringement.

The Plaintiff requests declaratory relief for non-infringement of trademark and trade dress, non-infringement of copyrights, and non-violation of state laws. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1405.

ZUFFA, LLC v. MOAZZAM GANDU
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-00228
FILED: 2/18/2010

If you’re in the broadcast entertainment industry, you know that there is a huge problem with copyright infringement. Many websites that accept postings from third parties as user generated content run the risk of copyright infringement even when complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. There is a split of legal authority throughout the country as to a website’s liability even with the takedown notice process for copyright infringement in use. Don’t sit back and rely exclusively on receiving DMCA takedown notices in order for you to act on copyright infringement issues.

Zuffa is better knows as the “Ultimate Fighting Championship”, and the Defendant is alleged to be operating a website that is offering unauthorized “live streaming” of an upcoming fight for $6.99. The Plaintiff charges $44.95.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, common law trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringement, actual damages, full litigation costs, compensatory damages, consequential damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, and punitive damages. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1406.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

2010-03-16T08:47:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

MONAVIE v. PURITY 12 LIFEBLEND, ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:10-CV-00074
FILED: 1/29/2010

Lawyers are often considered some of the greatest plagiarists and copiers in business. We copy forms, pleadings, and contracts all the time. Good lawyers use those only as a starting point and outline for customizing the proper solution for a client. The compensation plan in this case will have been drafted, or heavily reviewed, by legal counsel. Who is the real author? When an attorney prepares a contract for you, who owns the contract? The answer probably is not what you think. The attorney owns the copyright in the work and you have a license to use it, unless the attorney has assigned the ownership of his copyright interests to you. Before you start borrowing user agreements and privacy policies and contracts that you like, consider the possibility that those may be the property of a law firm. The important point to take away from this case is that when you need a legal document, go get one from your lawyer.

MonaVie is a Utah based networking marketing company manufacturing, distributing, marketing, and selling nutritional energy beverage products. The Defendants are alleged to have copied and reproduced the Plaintiff’s compensation plan document and are now using it in their own companies competing against the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement and false designation of origin. The Prayer for Relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet LawCross-Reference Number 1388.

REMENTORS, INC. v. MONICA MAIN, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
2:10-CV-00063
FILED: 1/12/2010

This is another interesting example of what is most likely trademark infringement. Defendants are also alleged to be using a number of copyright protected letters authored by the Plaintiff on its website. Yes, letters can be copyright protected. If you find a really good letter that you want to put into use in your business, make sure that you make substantial changes to it so that a copyright infringement issue does not arise.

The Plaintiff is a real estate investing firm operated by its founder and principal, David Lindahl. Lindahl claims to be a real estate investing expert well known for providing education, coaching and mentoring to average consumers who are seeking to become real estate investors. The Defendants have allegedly been running Google AdWords advertisements with titles such as “Lindahl is a Joke” and “Lindahl Scam Exposed”. Defendants are competing directly with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition/initial interest confusion. Plaintiff has requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as well as actual damages and Defendant’s profits for infringement of each copyrighted work, statutory damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and cost. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1389.

GORDON & DONER, P.A. v. GO DADDY GROUP, INC. AND JOHN DOES 1-3
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (WEST PALM BEACH)
9:10-CV-80015
FILED: 1/06/2010

This type of lawsuit and potential liability is the reason Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Any case against Go Daddy is going to be promptly dismissed because it has no liability for copyright infringement. It does not even appear that the law firm attempted to use the takedown notices under the DMCA to effectuate a simple solution to this problem. Hire an Internet law expert for Internet law matters.

The Plaintiff is a law firm in Florida and Go Daddy is the well known registrar. A competing law firm allegedly copied the content of the Plaintiff and is hosting it at Go Daddy. When the Plaintiff contacted Go Daddy, it refused to provide any information unless it received a subpoena. Go Daddy did direct the Plaintiff to the legal section of the Godaddy.com website.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, false designation or origin, and unauthorized publication of Plaintiff’s likenesses. Prayer for Relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs and that Defendants be required to destroy all materials in connection with the unauthorized use and pay for remedial advertising to benefit the Plaintiff. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1390.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2009 Copyright Infringement Cases

2010-01-26T09:37:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

LIGHTS OUT HOLDINGS, LLC AND SHAWNE MERRIMAN v. TILA NGUYEN AND LITTLE MISS TRENDSETTER, INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
3:09-CV-02742
FILED: 12/08/2009

This case deals with the infamous alleged incident in which Tila Tequila claims that Shawne Merriman attacked her.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant reproduced, duplicated, and is using exact copies of pictorial works to which it owns a copyright on her websites. The Defendant is Tila Tequila and the pictorials are used on her new, for-profit social networking website, according to the lawsuit. The individual Plaintiff, in addition to the corporate Plaintiff, is Shawne Merriman, a football player for the San Diego Chargers.

The Plaintiff has sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, dilution of famous mark, intentional interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and common law unfair competition. Plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, treble damages, exemplary and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory damages up to $2 million, costs, expenses and fees, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1390.

JEREMY SCHOEMAKER v. DAVID SULLIVAN
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA (OMAHA)
8:09-CV-00441
FILED: 12/08/2009

These fake sites, often in the form of blogs, and often designed to appear as if they are from a legitimate source or as if they are reporting legitimate news, are known in the industry as “flogs”, which is short for “fake blogs”. Considering the fact that these are clearly in violation of a broad range of regulatory laws, including the recently enacted Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines on the disclosure of financial information and deceptive practices, a business would be well advised to make sure no marketers are employing such a tactic.

Jeremy Schoemaker is known in the affiliate marketing and search engine marketing industry and his blog is visited by more than 25,000 unique visitors each day. One of the images on his website is a close-up of his face with a six figure check from Google. The Defendant is alleged to have launched a “flog” which is a fake blog that appears to be a news site and has misappropriated and is using Plaintiff’s image and copyright protected photograph on its site.

The lawsuit includes claims for copyright infringement, invasion of privacy, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff requests permanent injunctive relief, actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, an accounting of wrongful conduct and profits, recovery of all of Defendant’s direct and indirect profits, costs and attorneys’ fees, and any further relief the Court deems to be fair and just. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1391.

DARBYTECH TRAINING EQUIPMENT, INC. v. HAMPDEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS (BOSTON)
1:09-CV-12076
FILED: 12/04/2009

Don’t be fooled by the anti-intellectual property online legal commentators who believe that “information yearns to be free” to such an extent as to negate intellectual property rights. You will get that very distinct feeling that this is the law of the web when you read many of the law professors and left wing attorneys who blog about the issue. Of course, they have no attorney/client relationship with the readers, they don’t have malpractice insurance if they did to back up their opinion presented as a statement of fact, and they don’t exercise the slightest bit of objectivity in providing quality risk-management guidance. Which brings us to this case. All because it is on the web, and all because it is not clear that there is trademark protection in the image or text you are viewing, you cannot borrow it and use it for most purposes. There are some carve-outs to this exception relating to fair use and free speech, but theses are particularly complex, unsettled areas of law that lawyers and judges still struggle with. The takeaway from this case is that you simply should not ever “borrow” anything from a website without getting an okay from your lawyer that your intended use falls into a protected category of expression or fair use.

Plaintiff DarbyTech manufactures customized training equipment and provides training services for process-control systems. Defendant Hamden is a competitor. The Plaintiff made a presentation to Saudi Chevron in Kuwait City, Kuwait concerning a proposal on November 11, 2009. During the meeting, Saudi Chevron employees allegedly interrupted and stated that they had in their hands a presentation from another vendor, the Defendant, that contained the same photographs and text that formed part of DarbyTech’s presentation. The Plaintiff contends that the images and text was copied verbatim from DarbyTech’s website and used by the Defendant.

Defendant has been sued for copyright infringement, unfair competition, injurious falsehood, interference with advantageous business relations, conversion, and violation of G.L. c. 93A, § 11. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by Defendant, and such further and other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1392.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-12-30T06:22:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

PERFECT 10, INC. v. RAPIDSHARE AG, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
3:09-CV-02596
FILED: 11/18/2009

Here’s a good thumbnail measure of whether you have a legitimate online video business: If every pirated work was gone forever from your site, would you still have a viable business model? The reality is that most torrent and related sites only exist because of the presence of pirated materials on the sites. A DMCA copyright takedown notice usually results in the specific material referenced in the notice being removed promptly from the site, but, in the interim, revenue has been generated by the site based upon the pirated works. Most importantly for affiliate marketers, you can see that if you have been participating in the Rapidshare.com affiliate program there is some cause for concern. Don’t assume that all because a website is one of the top twenty trafficked websites in the world that it must be operating legally. We don’t know how this case will come out, but make sure as an affiliate marketer you are selling a legal product and your method of marketing the affiliate offer is legal.

Perfect 10, Inc. is a business involved in the design, creation, production, marketing, promotion and sale of copyrighted adult entertainment products including photographs, magazines, video productions, cell phone downloads, and other media. Rapidshare, one of the Defendants in this case, is the twelfth most popular website on the Internet. The Plaintiff alleges that Rapidshare enables users from around the world to purchase virtually every pirated image, song, and movie for $10 a month. Rapidshare also runs an affiliate marketing program in which it pays other third party websites to refer traffic to it. In many cases, Plaintiff alleges that these affiliates offer the public the ability to download a sample of the infringing content and then lure customers into joining Rapidshare.com to download the remainder. It appears the John Doe Defendants include all of Rapidshare.com’s affiliate marketers using this technique.

The Plaintiff has sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, violation of rights of publicity, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs have requested entry by the court of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an order for the destruction of all the Defendant’s infringing materials, removal of all links from Defendants’ websites to all affiliate infringing websites, restitution in an amount to be determined at trial but not less that $5 million, an award of actual damages of no less than $5 million, an accounting of profits, an award of statutory damages of no less than $10 million under the Copyright Act and California Civil Code Section 3344, an award of treble damages of no less than $5 million, the imposition of a constructive trust, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and full costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1385.

STANSBERRY & ASSOCIATES INVESTMENT RESEARCH, LLC v. JOHN DOE
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (BALTIMORE)
1:09-CV-03026
FILED: 11/13/2009

This is a pretty open and shut situation. Always keep in mind that a copyright in an article or even a newsletter arises as of the time it is written. Even if you are receiving a free newsletter, that does not give you the right to republish the contents. The same applies, of course, to content on blogs. Mark Cuban, the well known owner of a sports franchise, has recently questioned whether his “tweet” that was republished is protected by copyright laws. Of course, the best advice is to only use your original content.

The Plaintiff is an independent investment research firm that publishes investment advisories exclusively to its paid subscribers. An individual posted a substantial portion of the copyright-protected text of a report on the gold market on various finance boards.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, requests an order restraining the Defendant from further reproducing and publicly displaying the infringing material, requests an award of statutory damages up to $150,000.00 and that the Defendant be required to pay attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1384.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-11-25T12:11:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

CYBER WEBSMITH, INC. v. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:09-CV-06198
FILED: 10/05/2009

The American Dental Association and various subsidiaries are alleged to have taken the templates from the Plaintiff and held them out as their own. My guess is that what happened was a web developer at the ADA took a shortcut and his management didn’t conduct a simple source check. All they had to do was type unique website text into Google and see what results were generated before launching the websites into the marketplace. How can you be sure that the website delivered to you by your web developer does not infringe on the copyright of a third party? A little due diligence will go a long way. Under copyright law, intent or knowledge is not required, so if you are using a copyright protected work of another there is liability, whether you knew it or not.

The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of website design and marketing services, web hosting services, domain name registration services, and audio and video production services using website templates. The Defendants are alleged to have copied the Plaintiff’s work and licensed the resulting websites to dental practices across the United States.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices under 815 ILCS 510/2. Plaintiffs request the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant, the impoundment of all infringing copies of Plaintiff’s wok, actual damages, treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief the Court deems just. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1370.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-10-15T07:42:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

HUNTINGTON LEARNING CENTERS, INC., ET AL. v. REACHLOCAL INC.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:09-CV-06762
FILED: 9/17/2009

Franchise and distributor agreements must be read very carefully in today’s environment. Now, more than ever before, businesses are protecting their online presence by placing restrictions on the use of intellectual property by those selling, or reselling, services.

Huntington Learning Centers, Inc. is one of the leading educational tutoring providers in the United States. The Plaintiffs’ franchise agreement prohibits use of its trademarks “in connection with the Internet”. Reachlocal Inc., the Defendant, is a franchisee who is alleged to have copied the Plaintiff’s website and is using it on the Internet.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, unfair competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, injury to business reputation, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Plaintiffs request the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant, the recall or destruction of all goods or services or other materials bearing the Huntington marks, an accounting of profits, actual damages including profits of Defendant, treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief the Court deems just. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1358.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-09-30T07:01:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

DIAMOND ROSE SHEARS, LLC v. HATTORI HANZO SHEARS, LLC, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF COLORADO (DENVER)
1:09-CV-02035
FILED: 8/26/2009

In this case, the Plaintiff obtained copyright registration of its website. In order to bring a lawsuit in federal court this registration is required. It can be obtained at anytime within a couple of weeks on an expedited basis. The important point to note is that if you have a situation like this, the easier approach might be to simply serve a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice and have the website of the infringing party removed from the web. No copyright registration is required to use that tool.

Plaintiff Diamond Rose Shears, LLC launched a website in 2004. At least one of the Defendants was previously a distributor with the Plaintiff and after a falling out created a website using copies of the Plaintiff’s website.

The lawsuit includes counts for federal copyright infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requests the entry of preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants, an accounting of profits, actual damages including additional profits of Defendants, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and other just and proper relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1351.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-08-17T07:19:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

BRAND TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND BRADFORD MANDELL v. MATRIX PHOTO, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO (TOLEDO)
3:09-CV-01691
FILED: 7/21/2009

Nothing good comes from using images which you thought were in the “public domain”. Make absolutely sure that you are properly licensing the images you use on your website and when acquiring images from third parties make sure that you have adequate assurances to cover any liability that might arise if the images have been misappropriated.

This is a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment that the Plaintiff has not infringed on the Defendant’s images. The Plaintiff owns gossip websites and acquired images of music star Stacey Ferguson (aka Fergie) taken in the Bahamas with her then-boyfriend Josh Duhamel and displayed those on its website. The Defendant claims copyright infringement and has demanded monetary compensation.

The lawsuit includes claims for declaratory relief for non-infringement, declaratory relief that the Defendant does not have valid claim for copyright infringement, declaratory relief that the Defendant does not own a valid copyright registration, and declaratory relief for innocent infringement. Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from bringing any future lawsuit or threat against the Plaintiff for copyright infringement for Plaintiff’s use of the photos, an award of attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements, and further relief the Court deems proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1345.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-07-06T12:13:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

GHALEB MOHAMMED ISHAQ HIJAZI v. ATLAS ECONOMIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (WASHINGTON, DC)
1:09-CV-01123
FILED: 6/18/2009

Businesses are often far too informal in establishing business relationships with third parties, particularly as they relate to the online world. We constantly see “informal” collaborative relationships in which the ownership of intellectual property, the rights and obligations of the parties, and even the status of the relationships are not clearly defined by contract. Inevitably, when there is a falling out and the relationship draws to a close, there is often a significant disagreement as to many of the key terms that should have been hashed out in advance in a written contract prior to the relationship being undertaken.

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the country of Jordan and is a researcher and financial manager educated at the University of Jordan and the Arab Academy for Banking and Financial Sciences. The Defendants include the “Cato Institute”, a Washington, DC based think tank. The parties entered into some sort of an “independent contractor” relationship involving the Plaintiff’s work and related website, and the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, including the Cato Institute, maliciously and willfully converted the Plaintiff’s property, including his website, for their own use.

Count one alleges copyright infringement, count two alleges unfair competition under the trademark laws, count three alleges common law unfair competition, count four alleges trespass to channels, count five alleges unjust enrichment, count six alleges tortious interference with business opportunity, count seven alleges tortious interference with contract, count eight alleges conversion, and count nine alleges violations of trade secrets. The Plaintiff is requesting an award of compensatory damages, triple damages, punitive damages, the entry of an injunction, and the entry of an order transferring domain names to the Plaintiff, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1328.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-06-12T11:00:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

MATTHEW ROSENBERG v. SPICY BEAR MEDIA, LLC, ET AL.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (CHARLOTTESVILLE)
3:09-CV-00037
FILED: 05/15/2009

If the website did not post this image and they have registered an agent with the copyright office for purposes of receipt of DMCA takedown notices, then there should be no liability for the website if no takedown notice was served on the Defendant.

Rosenberg is a professional photographer who took a photograph of a venue in Charlottesville, VA. The Defendants are alleged to have copied, reproduced, and created a derivative work of the photograph on multiple occasions and used it on its local website serving the Charlottesville, VA area. The primary Defendant, the owner and operator of the website on which the image was posted by an apparent third party, is alleged to have failed to remove the image after knowing of the infringement claim. It is not clear from the pleading that any DMCA takedown notice was served on the website.

The Defendants have been sued for copyright infringement, the removal and alteration of copyright management information, and vicarious and contributory copyright infringement. Plaintiff requests an award of statutory damages of $150,000.00 per infringement, reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and a disgorgement of gains and profits from the Defendants. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1320.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: April 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-05-26T12:27:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

DON HENLEY AND MIKE CAMPBELL v. CHARLES S. DEVORE AND JUSTIN HART
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SANTA ANA)
8:09-CV-00481
FILED: 4/17/2009

Ever since President Obama’s tremendously successful online endeavors resulted in record-breaking contributions, politicians have been trying to figure out how to mimic the success of President Obama’s campaign. While there are certain carve-outs under the law that exempt politicians from the Can-Spam Act provisions, there is no such carve-out for copyright or trademark infringement. Whenever your business is entering into a new arena make sure that your team includes quality legal advisers. The “young guns” of technology understand the web, and that is about it.

The Plaintiffs are song writers and allege that two of their songs were used, without authorization or permission, by Defendant Charles S. DeVore in his campaign for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. Videos created with the lyrics and musical composition of the “Boys of Summer” and “All She Wants to Do Is Dance” were allegedly fashioned into campaign advertisements.

The Plaintiffs have sued for copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, false association or endorsement, and unfair business practices under California law. Plaintiffs have requested a declaratory judgment of copyright infringement by the Defendants, the entry by the court of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an award of statutory damages in the sum of $150,000.00, pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, an award of profits and damages, and such other further relief as the court deems proper. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1316.

GUADALUPE T. CANTU v. BEN HUH AND PET HOLDINGS INC.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)
2:09-CV-00516
FILED: 4/16/2009

Content is king. The better your content, and the more popular your content, the greater the risk of it being stolen to draw visitors to another site. In this instance, the video on YouTube produced by the Plaintiff was apparently hugely popular and therefore ripe for the alleged misappropriation. As animations and videos become more popular as a method of communicating online, the issue of “stolen content” is no longer just about words.

Plaintiff is a sixty-six year old retired mechanical engineer, who has lived on the Big Island of Hawaii since November, 1998. His main hobby over those ten years has been to hike the back county of Kilauea Volcano and document the volcanic activity with videos and photographs. Plaintiff alleges that in December of 2006 he viewed the Mount Kilauea episode of the Discovery Channel series “Man vs. Wild” and a survival expert by the name of Bear Grylls was supposedly dropped off by helicopter in a remote location to simulate the journey of a lost hiker as he makes his way to civilization. Plaintiff, familiar with the Kilauea Volcano, recognized that most of the episode was filmed next to various highways near tourist areas and published the video on YouTube pointing out the fake aspects of the episode. The Defendant is alleged to have taken the videos created by the Plaintiff and put them on his own YouTube channel.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, requests an order restraining the Defendants from providing access to the infringing material, requests an award of up to $150,000.00 and that the Defendants be required to pay attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1317.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-04-17T11:38:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

PNZ MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. STEVEN MORAN, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (TRENTON)
3:09-CV-01182
FILED: 3/13/2009

This is a John Doe lawsuit that aims at pursuing everyone involved with the Defendant’s businesses. Merely having a corporation rarely shields individuals from liability when directly and personally involved in this type of alleged misconduct. For those of you who think that forming a corporation provides a level of insulation, think again. And for those of you who are considering pursuing parties involved in copyright infringement, it might be advisable to consider that the individuals involved in the corporation may be personally liable for the copyright infringement.

PNZ is in the business of marketing and selling referral services through its various websites in the fields of dentistry, chiropractic, health clubs and personal fitness. The Defendants are alleged to have conspired to misappropriate much of the content of the Plaintiff’s businesses and copied substantial portions of the Plaintiff’s website and other websites and has launched those as competitive options to Plaintiff’s services.

The lawsuit includes a claim for copyright infringement, common law unfair competition, unfair competition under New Jersey state law, and tortious interference with prospective business and economic advantage. Plaintiff requests a “declaration” that Defendants willfully infringed the Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the eight Defendants and others from copying, displaying, selling, reproducing or preparing derivative works of any original works of authorship of the Plaintiff, actual damages, compensatory damages, consequential and incidental damages, punitive damages, triple and exemplary damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1303.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-03-20T06:45:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

MASTERFILE CORPORATION v. BUSINESS BUILDERS COACHING, INC.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:09-CV-00954
FILED: 2/09/2009

The idea that you can go out and “borrow” images that are out on the web is obviously problematic. Many of these stock photography agencies now use sophisticated programs to track all use of their images and have turned copyright infringements into quite a profitable business.

The Plaintiff is a stock photography agency with offices in Canada. The Defendant is a California corporation providing accounting and management consulting services. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant was using five photographs it owns on its website.

The lawsuit asserts a claim for copyright infringement and requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an award of damages, costs, fees, and legal expenses, and other relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1285.

AWR CORPORATION v. AEROANTENNA TECHNOLOGY
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:09-CV-00869
FILED: 2/04/2009

The interesting point in this case is that the Plaintiff apparently installed a “monitoring mechanism” which reports back to the Plaintiff information about the use by those downloading its “test version”. This raises all kinds of interesting issues. The lesson for businesses is that if they want to distribute their products electronically and use this type of monitoring feedback process the installation and distribution may be covered by spyware laws or other privacy laws. If you are installing software be particularly careful to use it only as specified in the license agreement, which means you need to actually read the license agreement and understand the scope of authorized use. In this instance the Defendants are alleged to have installed it on more computers than permitted, exceeded the number of days they were allowed to use it, and put it to use for commercial purposes when the license expressly prohibited such use.

AWR is a California corporation engaged in the business of developing licensing computer software. The Defendant is a California corporation that develops and manufacturers GPS antennas and other similar products. The Defendant is alleged to have downloaded software and installed the software on multiple computers outside the scope of the license agreement.

The lawsuit claims copyright infringement, breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The prayer for relief requests the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction from further unauthorized copying, an award of loss profits and actual damages, enhanced damages for willful infringement, cost of the suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees, an accounting of all Defendant’s profits, and destruction of all copies of the software. Additional claims for relief include an award of damages in an amount of at least $350,000.00. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1284.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2009 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-02-12T11:20:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute. CORBIS CORPORATION v. PERFECTION SOFTWARE, INC. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE) 1:09-CV-00837 FILED: 1/29/2009 Corbis is very aggressive and we have dealt with them on a number of occasions. They use automated software to search the web and locate images that are not properly licensed and then demand significant licensing fees for each image as damages. I have seen claims asserted by Corbis on images that are widely recognized as in the public domain. But Corbis claims that it has enhanced the images to such an extent that the creative works have become new and subject to copyright registration and protection. Consequently, all because you believe that an image is in the public domain (such as the photograph of the Scopes Monkey Trial or the image taken by the astronaut of the earth) you need to be careful. Even images that everyone thinks are in the public domain can be the subject of claims asserted by Corbis. And Bill Gates can afford to litigate. Corbis Corporation is in the business of licensing photograph and fine art images on behalf of itself and the photographers and other licensors it represents. It was founded by Bill Gates. The Defendant allegedly used some unlicensed copyright images of the Plaintiff on its website. The Plaintiff has sued for copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, statutory damages and an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. Dozier Internet Law-Cross Reference Number 1279. JENNIFER L. GEORGE v. SCOTT GRUENWALD, ET AL. EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (FRESNO) 1:09-CV-00189 FILED: 1/27/2009 Did you know copyright infringement does not require knowledge or intent to infringe? The mere use of a copyright protected image creates liability. It may seem unfair, but the fact is that anyone who uses images without determining definitely that they are in the public domain or without obtaining a license is at risk of infringing on a copyright. Don’t use images you find on the web and make sure that you have the proper license from the owner of the image or other creative work before using those on your website or in any other manner. Plaintiff is an individual who happened to be going through a ghost house and took photographs that depict “ghostly human forms and faces”. Plaintiff then sent the photos, with the desire to simply share her discovery, to the Defendant. She thereafter obtained registered copyrights for the photographs. The Defendant distributed the photographs to the other Defendants, some of which are publications that used the photographs online. Some of the Defendants posted the photographs on their MySpace page. The Plaintiff has sued for copyright infringement and requested an award of compensatory damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1280. ENHANCED RECOVERY CORPORATION v. CORBIS CORPORATION AND INVEX GROUP, INC. MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (JACKSONVILLE) 3:09-CV-00052 FILED: 1/20/2009 You can expect Corbis to file a counterclaim against both parties for copyright infringement. This is another way in which you can get caught up in a claim for copyright infringement. Your web development contract must have adequate provisions prohibiting the use of any unlicensed images and containing adequate indemnification provisions so if such a claim is asserted you can look to the web developer for payment of both your legal costs and any damages that might arise. Doing business with a web developer that will be around when such a claim arises, or has adequate assets to assure you that it is financially capable of indemnifying your company, is of critical importance. Corbis sent a letter to the Plaintiff alleging copyright infringement for images hosted on its website. The Plaintiff had hired Defendant Invex to build the site and is alleged to have used the images without proper licensing from Defendant Corbis. Corbis initially demanded the removal of the 22 images. The Plaintiff immediately removed the allegedly infringing copyrighted images from its websites and licensed “similar images” from a third party for $100.00. Corbis then demanded licensing fees after the images had been removed from the site. The Plaintiff has sued for declaratory relief against Corbis and requested indemnification against Plaintiff’s web developer, Invex. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1281.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2008 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2009-01-09T12:44:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

GATEHOUSE MEDIA MASSACHUSSETTS I, INC. v. THE NEW YORK TIMES CO.
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSSETTS (BOSTON)
1:08-CV-12114
FILED: 12/22/2008

This is a very interesting case since the ability to take “snippets” and short representative passages from copyright protected materials is generally considered to be permissible under the “Fair Use Doctrine”. However, in the online world, the fair use nature of short passages and parts of creative works takes on a different analysis. If a blogger quotes a passage and it is submitted through an RSS feed, can you run that RSS feed content without copyright infringement risk? This is the type of issue that will shape the future of the web, and it is likely that some common business practices everyone thinks are legal today will be a thing of the past and illegal in years to come.

Plaintiff is the publisher and owner of weekly newspaper in Massachusetts and a daily newspaper covering the city of Waltham, Massachusetts. The New York Times Company is doing business as “Boston.com” in the same geographic area. Plaintiff claims that the New York Times is reproducing, displaying, and distributing on the www.boston.com website unauthorized verbatim copies of newspaper article headlines and the first sentences thereof.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition or false designation of origin, false advertising, trademark dilution, unfair business practices, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract. Plaintiff requests entry of preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory damages, disgorgement of Defendant’s profits, triple damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1262.

TECHNOMARINE SA v. JOMASHOP.COM AND JOHN DOE 1
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:08-CV-10911
FILED: 12/16/2008

Anytime you borrow images from another website you are taking a risk, even if you have some sort of good faith argument that you have the right to resell the product and the image of the product is an essential aspect to accurately describe and present the product. It is one thing to use an image you have taken of a product that includes the product name when that is essential to the product description. It is another matter to “borrow” images from third parties, including a manufacturer.

Technomarine is a watch company headquartered in Switzerland and the Defendant allegedly copied watch photographs from its online marketing catalog and is using those photographs on its own website to sell “grey market” Technomarine branded watches.

The lawsuit includes claims for copyright infringement and federal unfair competition under trademark laws. Extensive preliminary and permanent injunctive relief is requested as well as an award of statutory damages, recovery of all gains and profits derived by the Defendants, triple damages, punitive damages, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1263.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2008 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2008-12-18T12:08:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

KBS AMERICA, INC. AND MUN HWA BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. MYTV, INC., ET AL
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:08-CV-07753
FILED: 11/24/2008

The Defendants' response in this case is interesting in that it attempted to create a firestorm backlash against the Plaintiff in the apparent hope of creating a "mobosphere" attack to gain some bargaining advantage and to intimidate the Plaintiff into submission. This is an attempt to use the "Streisand effect" to create a "mobosphere" attack. No matter what type of claim you are asserting, there is always the possibility of a counter-attack aimed at your business reputation online.

The Plaintiffs offer and sell immediate real-time access to a stream of content broadcast by Korean affiliates over the Internet to North American subscribers. The Defendants are alleged to be an illegal business by intercepting and re-broadcasting the Korean television streams of such works without authorization and then competing against the Plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded the Defendant's cease and desist from intercepting signals and infringing on its exclusive license rights. The Defendants allegedly responded by taking out full page advertisements in Korean language newspapers in the United States demanding that the Plaintiff stop asserting its rights to the programming. This lawsuit followed shortly thereafter.

Plaintiff has sued the Defendants for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and unfair business practices. An injunction prohibiting further copyright infringement, together with an order requiring impoundment and destruction of copies of the creative works, together with compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys' are request by the Plaintiff to be awarded by the court. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1253.

FRACTIONAL VILLAS, INC. v. WINDSOR CAPITAL MORTGAGE CORP. AND DOES 1-25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
3:08-CV-02076
FILED: 11/12/2008

In order for there to be copyright infringement there must be "substantial copying". The analysis, however, is a very subjective one. The determination of what is, and is not, copyright infringement can often turn on design elements, arrangement of information, and the underlying html code. Consequently, make sure that if there is not blatant, word for word copying involved that you perform a quality analysis.

The Plaintiff developed, built, and launched a real estate industry website. Defendants are alleged to have copied its website and are competing against the Plaintiff. The Defendants are alleged to have "replicated the look and feel of Plaintiff's website by mimicking certain distinctive elements". The Plaintiff also alleges that the two sites bear striking similarity to one another, in that Windsor's site has taken virtually all textual and design elements, as well as the website layout, from the Plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, trademark infringement, common law trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition under state and federal law. The lawsuit requests entry of temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, and an award of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1254.

NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION, INC. v. AUTOMATED INFO SOLUTIONS, INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (WEST PALM BEACH)
9:08-CV-81281
FILED: 10/31/2008

Unfortunately, there are still people and businesses who actually believe that if you can access information online the owner has waived all rights to protect it. Of course, that is not the case. Software programs that "scrape" data create inherent exposure for copyright infringement and claims of unauthorized access (hacking). There are a long line of cases going back into the late 1990s in which Plaintiff's have been successful in lawsuits against those running automated programs and retrieving information.

Plaintiff is a website that provides timely and relevant information on the golf industry with original research on every aspect of the business. Part of its business is to maintain databases which it has developed at great cost and expense, including a directory of all golf facilities and golf courses, which is a comprehensive listing of golf courses and their features throughout the United States. The Defendant claims to be in the business of "automating the collection of public data from websites". Plaintiff alleges that Defendant developed a software program that "scraped" the data from its database and sold the information as a "list of U.S. golf courses".

The lawsuit is for copyright infringement, false designation or origin, false advertising, misappropriation of trade secrets, and deceptive and unfair trade practices. The Plaintiff requests the issuance of a temporary and permanent injunction, together with an award of actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1255.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2008 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2008-11-21T08:13:00.000-08:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

FRESH SOFTWARE, LLC v. TRANSCORE, ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:08-CV-07112
FILED: 10/28/2008

This should be another wake up call for businesses. Your employees, acting within the scope of employment, can create significant liabilities for a business, even if the owners of the business were not aware of the misconduct.

The Plaintiff, Fresh Software, LLC, is in the business of developing, marketing and selling security related application and utility software on the Internet. A number of individuals are alleged to have obtained fraudulent registration codes which allow for the installation of the Plaintiff's program without purchase from "cracking sites". Transcore, the employer of the individual Defendants, has been sued because the individuals were allegedly acting within the course and scope of their employment as computer operators.

The lawsuit claims copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (relating to the intentional bypass of the technology leading to access). The Plaintiff asks for compensatory damages, disgorgement of all profits, an order for an accounting of all income, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and the entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants prohibiting further copyright infringement activity. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1230.

INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA v. DENTAL WEBSMITH, INC.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY (PADUCAH)
5:08-CV-00174
FILED: 10/16/2008

Web developers that allegedly use a single copyright protected image owned by a third party on many different websites generally will create liability for all of its customers with those websites. While the damages recoverable against the web developer may be limited, there are likely claims that can be asserted against all of the customers, and they will look back to the web developer for "indemnification". The indemnification claim will be based upon a contract, either express or implied, between the web developer and its customers. It is difficult to see how filing for declaratory judgment and attempting to have the court assess damages will help the Plaintiff avoid indemnification liability from all of its customers. The lesson to be learned, if the facts alleged are true, is that one mistake can lead to a very big problem cutting to the very essence of customer relationships.

This is a lawsuit filed for declaratory relief involving two competitors. The Plaintiff, Integrity Management of Florida, creates, maintains and supports websites for Chiropractors and Chiropractic clinics. The Defendant, Dental WebSmith, creates, maintains and supports websites for Dentists and Dental clinics. Dental WebSmith notified the Plaintiff that is was using an image of a Dental Hygienist for which it held a registered copyright on more than 120 different Chiropractor websites. While not directly contesting the claim of copyright infringement as a central point of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff complains about the alleged owner of the image issuing 22 demand letters to its clients and filing four lawsuits against its clients for copyright infringement.

The relief requested is a declaration from the court that Integrity Management of Florida did not unlawfully copy, publish, distribute, and/or commercially exploit copyrighted content purportedly belonging to Dental WebSmith, or alternatively if the court found Integrity did infringe Dental WebSmith's copyright, a declaration from the court as to the damages recoverable. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1231.

XCENTRIC VENTURES, L.L.C. v. OPINION CORP., ET AL.
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
2:08-CV-01841
FILED: 10/7/2008

The Plaintiff is suing for trademark infringement for the use of Plaintiff's trademark in a sub-domain and in metatags. This continues a significant trend of recent litigation occurring between competitors relating to the use of a business name. The web host is being sued because it "failed to adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of services provided to customers who are repeat infringers". Given these facts, if true, this case is a good example of the circumstances under which a web host or other service provider has copyright infringement liability from hosting a website.

The Plaintiff, owner of the famous "www.ripoffreport.com" website, sued the Defendant and its web host for allegedly copying copyrighted works from the Rip-Off-Report site and publishing those works on the "Pissed Consumer" website. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that the use of the term "rip-off-report" as a sub-domain on the Defendants' website and use in metatags on the “Pissed Consumer” site is trademark infringement.

The lawsuit includes a claim for copyright infringement against the website, a claim for vicarious copyright infringement against the web host, a claim of trademark infringement against the website, a claim for cyberpiracy against the website for use of the Rip-Off-Report trademark in its sub-domain, and a claim for unfair competition and initial interest confusion trademark infringement. Plaintiff requests a permanent injunction prohibiting further copyright infringement against both Defendants, actual damages, statutory damages, triple damages, its costs, attorneys' fees, and the forfeiture or cancellation of the sub-domain name. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1232.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2008 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2008-10-21T11:38:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

FRACTIONAL VILLAS, INC. v. DESERT QUARTERS, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
FILED: 9/23/2008
3:08-CV-01744

This is one of 5 lawsuits filed with the same allegations. Note the references to duplicate content and the allegation relating to the value of the creative aspects of the pages allegedly stolen by the Defendants. The relationship between the exact terms, the location of those terms in relation to other words, the formatting and presentation of the page, and other SEO elements are now finally working their way into the subject matter of lawsuits as it relates to damages and the intellectual property included on a webpage.

The Plaintiff is the author of certain creative works protected by US copyright registration which comprise the "fractionalvillas.com" website. The site offers fractional ownership of high end luxury properties. The Defendants are alleged to have reproduced the work protected by the copyrights and launched competing websites selling fractional ownership in luxury property. Plaintiff alleges that its "business and reputation were irreparably harmed by the confusion caused by the dual publication of the infringed material to web search engine results from Google, Yahoo, et al."

The lawsuit claims copyright infringement, federal unfair competition, California unfair competition, and requests the entry of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, the award of statutory damages of not less then $150,000.00 per copyright infringement, and other relief. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1220.

FEARS/NACHAWATI, PLLC v. GETTY IMAGES (US), INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS)
FILED: 9/23/2008
3:08-CV-01677

This is a classic example of why demand letters create an inherent risk and it is important to consider the implications of the words used. The response in this case was for a declaratory judgment to be filed in the lawyer's hometown and puts the law firm in a better position to resolve this matter on favorable grounds.

Plaintiff is a law firm located in Texas and the Defendant, Getty Images, asserted a claim of copyright infringement against the law firm for the alleged unauthorized use of images on its website.

The law firm filed a lawsuit in its own jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on the Getty Images' photographs. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1221.

TECHNOMARINE SA v. AUTHENTICWATCHES.COM INC AND JOHN DOE 1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
FILED: 9/11/2008
1:08-CV-07916

Very common problem today online. The Defendants stole the Plaintiff's website and, as savvy Internet business people know, a replica website cannot only divert traffic away but also "sandbox" or otherwise penalize the organic search results generated by the original website. So the theft of a website is a double edged sword that has more than one direct business consequence.

Technomarine is a Swiss based corporation famous for its watches and the worldwide owner of the "Technomarine" trademark. The defendant allegedly copied all or portions of the website of Technomarine and started selling "grey market" Technomarine-branded watches for sale to the public.

The lawsuit is brought for "federal unfair competition", trademark infringement and copyright infringement under the US Trademark Act. Damages, attorney's fees, triple damages, punitive damages, and other relief is included in the prayer for relief by the Plaintiff's for "Defendants use of copies of the copyrighted work". Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1222.

DESIGN BUREAU CORP. v. JEWELL E. COLVIN, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (MIAMI)
FILED: 9/04/2008
1:08-CV-22455

Liability is being extended to third parties through claims of "conspiracy" and traditional notions of "vicarious liability" and "contributory liability" in the context of torts and intellectual property infringements. These types of claims establishing potential significant liability on the shoulders of third parties will dramatically change, over the coming years, the conduct of businesses in the world of the Internet. The natural consequence of these risks will be to "self police" more attentively the practices, policies and procedures of businesses internally and increase the care given in selecting business partners and customers.

The Plaintiff registered a state trademark and service mark in the term "adbportfolios.com" in 2002 and developed a website for which it claims copyright protection. Due to various disputes, the Plaintiff obtained a court order in 2004 validating its ownership of both the content of the website and the domain name for which it held a state trademark registration. Defendant is alleged to have copied the Plaintiff's website in its entirety, obtained the domain name "adbportfolio.com" and launched a competing website. A third Defendant, Reed Presentations, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, allegedly acquired the website and is alleged to have conspired with the other Defendants.

Plaintiff has brought an action for federal trademark infringement, federal copyright infringement, Florida state trademark infringement, Florida deceptive and unfair trade practices act violations, tortious interference with prospective business relationships, and civil conspiracy. The relief requested includes $100,000.00 for each trademark infringement, $150,000.00 for each copyright infringement, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and extensive injunctive relief addressing the claimed misconduct of the Defendants. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1223.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2008 Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2008-09-25T11:39:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

SEGA OF AMERICA, INC. v. DOES 1-10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)

2:08-CV-05699

FILED: 08/29/2008

The Plaintiff goes to great length to explain in this lawsuit that the “early screenshots and some video of what was still very much a work in progress” had been taken and further states that the “FTP files do not accurately portray the ultimate appearance or functionality” of the video game. It makes you wonder whether the purpose of this lawsuit is to seek redress for damages or a notice to the public that the unauthorized version making the rounds is far inferior to the actual game which is scheduled for release during the holiday season of 2008. This case may be the perfect example of a lawsuit being used for public relations purposes.

Sega is a publisher and distributer of video games, and Sega employees posted an early version of “Sonic Unleashed” on a FTP server behind password protection. The same day that the video game files were posted, a Sega employee accidentally posted the password to the confidential FTP page and although this security breach was discovered within an hour, unknown Defendants are claimed to have accessed the server and repeatedly copied and distributed the FTP files on the web.

Sega of America, Inc. has sued unknown Defendants, identified as “John Doe” defendants, for copyright infringement. Sega is asking for the entry of injunctive and monetary relief, and in particular a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and all other acting in concert or participation with them from infringing or assisting further infringement of the Sega copyright protected files. Dozier Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1203.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report: Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

2008-09-25T09:41:00.000-07:00

Dozier Internet Law and John W. Dozier Jr., Esq. have now moved the online version of the Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report to the blogging environment. We'll continue to maintain the historical case filings and comments issued prior to September 1, 2008 on the main Dozier Internet Law website. This blog focuses exclusively on copyright infringement lawsuits. Enjoy...and stay informed!