Articles Posted in Copyright Litigation

|

Los Angeles, CA – Garment industry copyright attorneys sought protection for United Fabrics’ registered copyrights in fabric/textile designs by filing a copyright infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court to prevent the copying of its fabric/textile designs copyrights. Plaintiff alleges that two of its designs registered with the Copyright Office are being copied. The first design was purchased from an Italian art studio and the multi-element floral design was converted for printing on textiles. After plaintiff applied for and received copyright registration for this first design with the U.S. Copyright Office, it provided samples of fabric to defendant Wraps. The complaint alleges that Wraps even ordered and received one shipment of fabric bearing the first design. But instead of purchasing additional fabric from United Fabrics, Wraps is alleged to have copied the fabric design through third parties and sold garments bearing the design protected by copyrights to numerous retailers.

Plaintiff also purchased source artwork from an Italian art studio and created a second design for printing on textiles. Once again plaintiff received a copyright registration from the U.S. Copyright Office and provided samples of the fabric to defendant Swat. Defendant Swat allegedly did not order any fabric from Plaintiff, but instead copied the design through third parties and manufactured and sold garments to various retailers. The complaint alleges a cause of action for copyright infringement for each of the fabric designs registered with the Copyright Office. It also alleges a cause of action for vicarious and/or contributory copyright infringement. Finally, a breach of contract claim is alleged against Wraps and Swat because they agreed that they were receiving Plaintiffs designs that were subject to copyright protection “with the express understanding and agreement that they were proprietary to Plaintiff, and if [either] wished to create product bearing said designs, it would have to do so through Plaintiff.” The case is titled United Fabrics International, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc. et al., CV08-01936 MMM (Central District Of California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorney filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court to protect a song from allegedly being copied by musician, singer, actor and comedian Jamie Foxx. In 1999, Plaintiffs, Trace Augcomfar and Marvin Paige, obtained a copyright registration for a musical composition titled “Losing Me In You.” In December, 2005, Jamie Foxx provided the vocals on an album entitled “Unpreditable,” featuring the musical composition entitled “Do What It Do.” The complaint alleges that the “Do What It Do” composition is strikingly similar to the musical composition written by the Plaintiffs in 1999, and the chorus, or musical “hook”, is identical. Plaintiffs allege that Foxx gained access to Plaintiffs’ song through a mutual acquaintance, Conrad Hilton. Plaintiffs contend that Foxx’s infringement was knowing, willful and intentional. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages of no less than $1 million, for an accounting of all gains, profits and advantages of Defendants, and attorneys fees and costs.

|

UPDATE 6/17/08: The District Court ordered dismissal of Defendants’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1), because the U.S. Copyright Office had not issued a registration certification at the time the complaint was filed.  Click to learn how jewelry copyright registration protects jewelry designs.

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys filed a jewelry copyright infringement lawsuit, in Los Angeles Federal District Court, on behalf of Sweet Romance Jewelry Mfg. for copying of protected jewelry designs. In 1997, Sweet Romance authored, as an employer for hire, a jewelry design entitled “Lady Caroline Lorgnette” (the “Work”). The Work was first sold in 1999 through the defendants’ competitors. On March 12, 2008 – only recently – Plaintiff submitted the Work to the U.S. Copyright Office for registration.

jewelry-copyright-design-jewelry.jpgThe complaint alleges that defendants, which are various entities related to the Home Shopping Network, began manufacturing and selling copies of the Work, which are virtually identical to Plaintiff’s work, except for the name given to the jewelry piece. The complaint alleges that the Defendants’ copies are cheap imitations manufactured in China and instead of the stones being made of Czech crystal, as represented on the Home Shopping Channel, the “stones” appear to be plastic or other inferior materials. (SIDE NOTE: If that is the case, it’s puzzling why the Plaintiff does not include a false advertising/unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act). The complaint continues that the defendants’ copy of the work is allegedly not sold in California because the high concentration of lead violates California’s strict environmental and safety regulations. Also, plaintiff alleges that Defendants had access to copies of the Work because they were involved in negotiations to market plaintiff’s work. The complaint seeks damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504. The case is titled: Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, CV08-02074 R (C.D. California).

Continue reading ›

|

A Redondo Beach, CA restaurant was sued for copyright infringement by copyright attorneys for several recording companies for publicly playing music at the restaurant without a license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. The complaint lists five songs which received copyright registrations by their individual authors with the U.S. Copyright Office, and the rights are owned by the record companies. The complaint alleges that on one night, presumably when their investigator was at Paulie’s Upper Deck Sports Grill, the five musical compositions covered by copyrights were publicly performed “for the entertainment and amusement of the patrons attending said premises, and defendants threaten to continue such infringing performances.”

The complaint alleges that plaintiff warned the defendant that a copyright license was needed in order to publicly perform the music at the restaurant. Because the defendant allegedly refused to pay for the license, the defendant’s copyright infringement was intentional and willful. Plaintiffs request statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $ 30,000.00 and not less than $ 750.00 for each registered song. Plaintiffs also request that the court order the defendants to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Far Out Music v. Fratelli Brothers, Inc., CV08-01975 GPS (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) allows the statutory damages to be raised to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be knowingly conducted. Also, if a restaurant or public establishment unreasonably believed that it was exempt from licensing requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 110(5), the copyright plaintiff, in addition to other damages under section 504, will be entitled to two times the license fee which it should have paid for the preceding period of up to 3 years. Because of the varying affiliations between record companies and the licensing society, a license from each of the following licensing societies must be obtained to cover the music owned by the various recording companies:

Continue reading ›

|

copyright-spiderman-pic.jpgBurbank, CA – Copyright attorney files copyright infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court alleging infringement of Spiderman cartoon copyrights. BVS Entertainment, Inc. owns exclusive copyrights to episodes of the animated Spiderman television series from the 1960s. BVS alleges that Defendant Trans World had purported to license copyrights and provide copies of Spiderman to various entities around the country. In February, Trans World signed a settlement agreement acknowledging BVS’s copyrights, disclaiming its own, admitting infringement, and promising to cease and desist. However, as the complaint continues, Trans World began marketing rights to Spiderman again in violation of BVS’s copyrights and the settlement agreement.

In the settlement agreement, Trans World admitted to infringing BVS’s copyrights and was required to identify all entities to which Trans World had licensed the Spiderman animated series. The complaint, however, alleges that Trans World failed to identify all of the entities which BVS later discovered. BVS claims that “Trans World failed to abide by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and continued to infringe [the copyrights] even after Trans World signed the Settlement Agreement on Februaruy 1, 2008. Specifically, Trans World sent an email on February 3, 2008, to Corus Entertainment, Inc., offering ten episodes of ‘Spiderman’ to which BVS owns the exclusive copyrights, as Trans World acknowledged in the Settlement Agreement.” BVS seeks monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction against Trans World and asks the Court to order the “seizure of unauthorized copies of ‘Spiderman’ in Trans World’s possession custody and control, including means of production as provided by 17 U.S.C. section 503.”

I like the original Spiderman theme song:

Continue reading ›

|

Los Angeles, CA – A garment industry copyright lawsuit was instituted by copyright attorneys for Major Textile Imports, Inc. against Jones Apparel Group, Inc in Los Angeles District Court. In November 2006, Major Textile designed a fabric design or pattern and applied for copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, which copyright was registered in December of 2006. In fact, Major Textile produced several fabric designs and applied to copyright them with the Copyright Office around the same time frame. Major Textile asserts that it “has always printed its copyrighted designs on good quality fabric in attractive color combinations and sold fabric bearing the copyrighted designs to garment manufacturers and others.”

Jones-Apparel-pic.jpgPlaintiff asserts that “since at least as early as or prior to September 2007, Jones Apparel infringed said copyright by advertising, offering for sale, and selling…garments imprinted with designs and/or patterns which is (sic.) closely copied from and substantially similar to Major Textile’s copyrighted designs, patterns and/or fabrics.” In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against defendant’s sale of the allegedly infringing garments made with the Plaintiff’s designs, patterns, and/or fabrics. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of its costs and attorneys’ fees. The case is titled Major Textile Imports, Inc. v. Jones Apparel Group, Inc., CV08-01448 CAS (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Santa Monica copyright attorney files a copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement lawsuit on behalf of musician Christopher Swann against Anna Kournikova for using his music on her entertainment DVD titled “A Date With Anna.” Swann alleges that in 1999 he wrote, produced and recorded a full-length music album and in February of 2003 the United States Copyright Office issued a copyright registration for the compositions. In April of 2003, Swann learned that score/soundtrack music was need for the Kournikova project and Swann submitted his copyrighted music for synchronization with the “A Date With Ana” video. Swann was provided a licensing agreement by a production company involved in the project which Swann rejected after meeting with his copyright attorney. The copyright licensing agreement was not executed and Swann believed that his music was not going to be used on the Kournikova project.

anna-copyright-lawsuit-music.jpgIn February of 2006, Swann purchased a DVD of “A Date With Anna” and discovered that twenty two minutes of his copyrighted music was used in Kournikova’s DVD. Swann alleges that because he expressly rejected the licensing agreement offer, no agreement was ever reached and the use of the copyrighted material without license, or other consideration constitutes copyright infringement. Swann alleges that “as early as April 2003, defendants, and each of them, without Plaintiff’s permission, license, and without remuneration to Plaintiff, adapted, used, reproduced, marketed, distributed and sold Plaintiff’s copyrighted material in the defendants’ video production, a digital video disc (DVD) entitled, ‘A DATE WITH ANNA.'” Swann continues that the infringement by the defendants was intentional and knowing and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against the distribution of the video. The case is titled Christopher Jerry Swann v. Anna Kournikova et al., CV08-01477 R (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: In order to recover statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, the copyright in the work must have been registered before the commencement of the infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 412.

|

Glendale, CA – Copyright lawsuit was filed by Glendale, CA copyright attorneys representing Burbank based Disney Enterprises, Inc. The copyright infringement lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Federal District Court, itemizes several motion pictures which have been produced by Disney and registered with the US Copyright Office. Disney alleges that the defendant does business on eBay and has “copied, reproduced, distributed, advertised and/or sold and continue to copy, reproduce, distribute, advertise and/or sell unauthorized copies of motion pictures owned by Disney,” which copies are counterfeit.

Disney-trademark-logo.jpgDisney states that its damages cannot yet be determined and it may elect between the profits generated by the defendants or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504. Because Disney claims not to have an adequate remedy at law, it “seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 and seizure of the Unauthorized Media Product, including the means of production as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 503.” Disney also requests that its attorneys’ fees and other costs in connection with the prosecution of its claims be paid by defendant pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

|

Los Angeles, CA – Attorney files copyright infringement lawsuit on behalf of Forestweb – an information and industry intelligence provider – for infringement of its copyrights in its published newsletter. Forestweb uses proprietary software and technology to collect and analyze data regarding the wood, pulp, paper and forest product industries worldwide. Subscribers are provided access to its newsletter pursuant to a written license agreement, where the licensing fee is based upon the number of readers employed by the business. Forestweb routinely registers its copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Defendant Stora Enso Timber entered into a license agreement and identified ten users with a corresponding annual license fee. Forestweb alleges that Stora breached the license agreement by distributing electronic copies of the copyrighted content to a larger number of its employees without paying the increased licensing fee. The unauthorized distribution of the copyrighted newsletters is the basis for the copyright infringement claim under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501. Forestweb also asserts a cause of action for the breach of the licensing agreement. Forestweb asks for attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided for in the licensing agreement, and also under 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Forestweb, Inc. v. Stora Enso Timber, CV08-01306 SVW (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – A copyright infringement lawsuit was filed by attorneys on behalf of several recording companies against a restaurant for having a band perform live music without obtaining a copyright license. The complaint lists five songs which are copyrighted by their individual authors with the U.S. Copyright Office, and the rights are owned by the record companies. The complaint alleges that on one night, presumably when their investigator was at the restaurant, the five copyrighted musical compositions were publicly performed “for the entertainment and amusement of the patrons attending said premises, and defendants threaten to continue such infringing performances.”

The complaint alleges that the defendants’ copyright infringement was intentional and willful because, despite numerous letters and contacts about the required copyright licenses, “defendants have not sought or obtained a license agreement from plaintiffs or the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP).” Plaintiffs request statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $ 30,000.00 and not less than $ 750.00 for each copyrighted song. Plaintiffs also request that the court order the defendants to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Warner Bros. Inc., v. Gagner Corporation, SACV08-00215 JVS (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) allows the statutory damages to be raised to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be intentional. Also, if a restaurant or public establishment unreasonably believed that it was exempt from licensing requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 110(5), the copyright plaintiff, in addition to other damages under section 504, will be entitled to two times the license fee which it should have paid for the preceding period of up to 3 years. In some cases, business establishments that play hold music on their telephone system need to obtain copyright licenses. To obtain a music licensing agreement, and to cover all your bases, you should obtain a license from each of the following licensing societies:

Continue reading ›