Copyright Infringement

September 26, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Limousine Service Sued for Copyright Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Copyright attorney, professional photographer and frequent litigant Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed the latest in a string of Indiana lawsuits asserting copyright infringement.

This litigation, commenced in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Defendant A1 Luxury Limousine of South Florida, Inc. of Boynton Beach, Florida infringed Bell’s rights in a copyrighted photograph by using the photo on the company’s website without having purchased a license from Bell.

The photo, titled “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo,” has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. VA0001785115. It was taken in 2000 and registered in 2011.

Bell lists claims of copyright infringement and unfair competition against A1. As with most or all of Bell’s other Indiana lawsuits claiming infringement of his “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo” or his “Indianapolis Photo,” this complaint further alleges that infringement is being willfully engaged in “with oppression, fraud, and malice.”

Bell asks the court for injunctive relief, statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: We have blogged about Bell’s Indiana copyright litigation in previous posts. See:

• Bell Sues Shuttered Auto Repair Shop for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Copyright Attorney Shifts to Alleging Infringement of Different Photo
• Attorney/Plaintiff Accuses Wisconsin Analytics Firm of Copyright Infringement
• Bell Names Aramark in Latest Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator
• Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

September 23, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Bell Sues Shuttered Auto Repair Shop for Infringing Copyrighted Photo

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana, a copyright lawyer and professional photographer, sued Defendant Hornberger Imports, Inc. of Beech Grove, Indiana in the Southern District of Indiana for copyright infringement.

As with most or all of Bell’s recent Indiana copyright litigation, this lawsuit pertains to works that have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Reg. No. VA0001785115. This registration covers two photos, Bell’s “Indianapolis Photo” and his “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.”

In this lawsuit, Bell contends that Defendant Hornberger infringed his copyright in the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo” by publishing the photo on Hornberger’s website at www.hornbergerimports.com sometime in 2016 without having purchased a license to do so. Bell’s complaint states that Defendant “continue [sic] infringing conduct which has caused and is causing substantial and irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiff…and, unless, restrained, will cause further irreparable injury.” The complaint further contends that the alleged ongoing infringement is being willfully engaged in “with oppression, fraud, and malice.”

In addition to copyright infringement, a claim of unfair competition is included. Bell seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip #1: Hornberger Imports appears to have ceased operations in February 2015.

Practice Tip #2: Bell is a prolific copyright litigant. We have blogged about his copyright litigation in the past. See:

• Bell’s Copyright Litigation Expands to Include IU, Purdue and Others
• Copyright Attorney Shifts to Alleging Infringement of Different Photo
• Attorney/Plaintiff Accuses Wisconsin Analytics Firm of Copyright Infringement
• Bell Names Aramark in Latest Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator
• Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

September 22, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Ziggy’s Bar & Grill Sued by BMI for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – A copyright litigator for Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”) of New York, New York filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement.

Defendants in this Indiana litigation, all residents of Indianapolis, Indiana, consist of one business entity, KD&R Enterprises LLC d/b/a Ziggy’s a/k/a Ziggy’s Bar & Grill, and three individuals, Krista Stallings, Denice Benefiel and Ryan Cromer.

Defendant KD&R Enterprises is accused of publicly performing copyrighted musical compositions and/or causing such musical compositions to be publicly performed without authorization. The complaint lists Stallings, Benefiel and Cromer separately as Defendants on the grounds that each is an officer or member of KD&R Enterprises with a responsibility for its operation and that each has a direct financial interest in the company.

The complaint alleges that Defendants were contacted 70 or more times “in an effort to educate Defendants as to their obligations under the Copyright Act with respect to the necessity of purchasing a license for the public performance of musical compositions in the BMI repertoire” but that infringement of BMI’s copyrighted works continued. In this lawsuit, six claims of willful infringement are made against Defendants.

BMI is joined in this copyright litigation by the owners of the copyrighted works: Dennis Linde Legacy, Rondor Music International, Inc. d/b/a Irving Music, Songpainter Music, Universal-Songs of Polygram International, Inc., Songs of Universal, Inc., Escatawpa Songs and McMoore McLesst Publishing.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorney’s fees.

September 19, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Bell’s Copyright Litigation Expands to Include IU, Purdue and Others

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Copyright attorney and professional photographer Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed four new lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement.

Defendants in these four new cases are: Indiana University of Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana; Purdue University of West Lafayette, Indiana; David Powell and Midwest Regional Network for Intervention with Sex Offenders of Indianapolis, Indiana; and East Coast Health Insurance, Inc. of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

At issue in these four lawsuits are two photos, Bell’s “Indianapolis Photo” and his “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo,” which have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. VA0001785115.

Bell contends that the two universities infringed the copyright of the “Indianapolis Photo,” while the remaining Defendants are accused of having infringed the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.”

Bell makes claims of “Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition” and seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Bell is a frequent copyright litigant in Indiana. Our previous posts about his litigation include:

• Copyright Attorney Shifts to Alleging Infringement of Different Photo
• Attorney/Plaintiff Accuses Wisconsin Analytics Firm of Copyright Infringement
• Bell Names Aramark in Latest Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator
• Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

September 16, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Copyright Attorney Shifts to Alleging Infringement of Different Photo

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Copyright attorney and Plaintiff Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed a new group of lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana asserting infringement of a copyrighted photo.

The photo in question in these latest lawsuits, Bell’s “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo,” was registered on August 4, 2011 with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. VA0001785115. In most of Bell’s prior litigation asserting infringement of his copyrighted photos (see “Practice Tip” below), only his “Indianapolis Photo,” taken during the daytime, has been at issue.

Three new Defendants are the subjects of these copyright lawsuits: Dave Tipton of Indianapolis, Indiana, Keith Buckley of Fishers, Indiana and A Place for Mom, Inc. of Everett, Washington. Bell contends that each Defendant “downloaded or took the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo from the internet without permission from the owner, Richard N. Bell and copied on to [sic] a webserver controlled by the Defendant” and, in so doing, committed copyright infringement.

Each of the lawsuits lists a count of “Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition.” Bell seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: We have blogged about Bell’s copyright lawsuits numerous times in the past. See:

• Attorney/Plaintiff Accuses Wisconsin Analytics Firm of Copyright Infringement
• Bell Names Aramark in Latest Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator
• Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

September 8, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Airbrushing Firm Sues Boat Seller for Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Copyright lawyers for Plaintiff The Art of Design, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana. Defendants in this Indiana lawsuit are Pontoon Boat, LLC d/b/a Bennington and Bennington Marine of Elkhart, Indiana and Hawkeye Boat Sales, Inc. of Dubuque, Iowa.

Plaintiff is in the business of custom airbrushing, including the airbrushing of copyrighted art works onto different surfaces. Defendants offer marine goods, including pontoon boats. In 2011, Plaintiff and Bennington entered into an agreement wherein Bennington paid Plaintiff to apply copyrighted graphics, titled “Shatter Graphics,” to a limited number of Bennington’s pontoon boats in exchange for payment.

Plaintiff contends that, following this authorized application of Shatter Graphics to Defendants’ pontoon boats, Defendant made further use of the copyrighted design without Plaintiff’s authorization.

In this Indiana litigation, Plaintiff makes several allegations, including accusing Defendant of copyright infringement for the sale of pontoon boats bearing graphics “that are copied from and substantially similar to” Plaintiff’s Shatter Graphics, which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration numbers VA 1-979-388 and 1-982-002. The lawsuit lists the following claims for relief:

• Count I – Breach of Contract against Bennington
• Count II – Unjust Enrichment against all Defendants
• Count III – Copyright Infringement against all Defendants
• Count IV – Unfair Competition against all Defendants
• Count V – Inducing Copyright Infringement against Bennington

• Count VI – Violations of DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1202

Plaintiff is seeking damages, including treble damages, as well as equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Plaintiff’s copyright attorneys also represent frequent litigant Design Basics. We have blogged about Design Basics’ Indiana copyright litigation before. See:

• Design Basics Sues Fort Wayne Homebuilders
• Creator of Architectural Designs Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits
• Design Basics Files Three New Indiana Copyright Lawsuits
• Architecture Firms File Four New Infringement Lawsuits
• Design Basics Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits
• Architecture Firm Files New Lawsuit Asserting Infringement
• Design Basics Files Two Additional Infringement Lawsuits in the Northern District
• Design Basics Files Additional Indiana Lawsuit

• Design Basics Sues Builders and Others Alleging Infringement of Copyrighted Architectural Designs

September 7, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney/Plaintiff Accuses Wisconsin Analytics Firm of Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Serial litigant Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed a new lawsuit alleging copyright infringement in the Southern District of Indiana. This litigation names analytics firm Aurora Worldwide Development Corporation of Madison, Wisconsin as Defendant.

Aurora is accused of infringing Bell’s copyright in a photo titled “Indianapolis Photo,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. VA0001785115. Bell claims that Aurora published the copyrighted photo without proper authorization on its website, aurorawdc.com, as well as within a PDF file located on another website that Aurora controls.

In this lawsuit, Bell, an Indiana copyright lawyer and professional photographer, also contends that Defendant’s conduct disparaged him, stating that Aurora “willfully and recklessly falsely claimed that it client [sic] owned the copyrights of all images and photos contained on the website of aurorawdc.com including Indianapolis Photo and thereby disparaged the Plaintiff.”

Bell includes claims of “copyright infringement and unfair competition” in this lawsuit. He seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Bell is a frequent copyright litigant in Indiana federal courts. Previous blog posts about his cases include:

• Bell Names Aramark in Latest Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator
• Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

August 30, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Bell Names Aramark in Latest Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana initiated the latest of a string of Indiana lawsuits alleging copyright infringement of his “Indianapolis Photo,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. VA0001785115.

This litigation, which was filed in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Defendant Aramark Corporation infringed Bell’s copyright by publishing his “Indianapolis Photo” on Aramark’s website.

In this intellectual property lawsuit, Bell, an Indiana copyright attorney and professional photographer, lists a single count – “Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition.” Bell states that Defendant Aramark acted “recklessly, willfully” and in “conscious disregard” of his rights under copyright law. He seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Bell has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years alleging infringement of his “Indianapolis Photo” as well as his “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.” These lawsuits have been discussed on this blog before. See:

• Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator
• Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

August 19, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Get 2 Go, Its Operators and Related Stores Sued for Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. and National Tobacco Company, L.P., both of Louisville, Kentucky, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of various registered trademarks covering ZIG-ZAG® roll-your-own cigarette papers and accessories. In addition to trademark infringement under federal law, Plaintiffs allege copyright infringement, false designation of origin and trade dress infringement under federal law as well as trademark infringement and unfair competition under Indiana common law.

Multiple Defendants, most of Fort Wayne, Indiana, are named in this intellectual property lawsuit: KPC Distributor Inc.; Kuldeep Singh; Paramjit Singh; Charanjit Singh; Burger’s, Inc., d.b.a. Burger Dairy; JGM Stores Inc., d.b.a. Burger Dairy II; Kirandeep, Inc., d.b.a. Crescent Corner Express; KSL Stores Inc., d.b.a. Get 2 Go #10; KSL Holdings Inc., d.b.a. Get 2 Go #13; Coliseum Quick Mart Inc., a.k.a. Get 2 Go #15; Calhoun Store Inc., a.k.a. Get 2 Go 16; KPC Brothers Inc., a.k.a. Get 2 Go #17 d.b.a. Get 2 Go; Get 2 Go #18; Virk Brothers Enterprises Inc., a.k.a. Get 2 Go 19, d.b.a. Shell Get 2 Go #19; JAT Boyz Stores Inc., a.k.a Harlan Quick Stop; KPC Investments LLC, a.k.a. Iceway Express; John Does 1-10; and XYZ Companies 1-10.

At issue in this Indiana lawsuit are the following trademarks: Registration No. 610,530 for ZIG-ZAG (stylized), Registration No. 1,127,946 for ZIG-ZAG (text), Registration No. 2,169,540 for Smoking Man (design with circle border), Registration No.2,169,549 for Smoking Man (design with no border), Registration Nos. 2,664,694 and 2,664,695 for North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. (design), and Registration Nos. 2,610,473 and 2,635,446 for North Atlantic Operating Company (text), all of which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The ZIG-ZAG trademarks are owned by a French company, Bolloré, S.A., which is not a party to this litigation, and are licensed to Plaintiff North Atlantic.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a widespread scheme to acquire, sell and/or distribute counterfeit products bearing various registered trademarks and/or copyrighted text that Plaintiffs allege is protected by law. This text includes the phrase “Distributed by North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc.”

Plaintiffs further contend that one or more Defendants’ conduct was willful. They contend that this was demonstrated on more than one occasion when a North Atlantic representative requested a receipt for the purchase of accused goods and this request was refused. On one occasion, when the representative insisted on a receipt, Plaintiffs state that “Defendant KPC Distributor ripped the receipt in two pieces, keeping the piece that displayed Defendant KPC Distributor’s contact information for itself.”

In this Indiana intellectual property lawsuit, filed by trademark litigators for Plaintiffs, Defendants are accused of having sold “dozens of cartons and hundreds of booklets of confirmed counterfeit ZIG-ZAG® Orange to undercover North Atlantic representatives.” Plaintiffs state the following claims:

• Federal Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
• False Designation of Origin and Trademark/Trade Dress Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1225(a))
• Federal Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.)
• Common Law Unfair Competition

• Common Law Trademark Infringement

Plaintiffs ask the federal court for damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

August 16, 2016

Seventh Circuit – Trademark Law: Unauthorized Copying of Karaoke Tracks May be Piracy, but Not Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Plaintiffs Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. and its successor in interest Phoenix Entertainment Partners LLC (collectively, “Slep-Tone”) in a Lanham Act lawsuit asserting trademark infringement and trade dress infringement.

Trademark attorneys for serial litigant Slep-Tone have filed more than 150 lawsuits throughout the country under the Lanham Act alleging unauthorized copying and performance of Slep-Tone’s karaoke tracks. Slep-Tone contends that such activities constitute trademark infringement and trade dress infringement.

This federal litigation springs from a technology upgrade available to Slep-Tone customers. Earlier formats on which karaoke songs were offered included CD+G compact discs (with the +G referring to the graphic component) and MP3+G media. With the advent of large-capacity hard drives, some customers opted to transfer the files contained on their lawfully purchased CD+G or MP3+G to a hard drive, a practice known as “media shifting.” Because many compact discs can be stored on one hard drive, media shifting removed the need to swap between multiple discs to access different songs. This transfer was permitted by Slep-Tone as long as the customers notified Slep-Tone, agreed to certain terms that restricted multiple copies from being made and agreed to submit to an audit to certify compliance with Slep-Tone’s media-shifting policy.

In this lawsuit, filed against Defendants Basket Case Pub, Inc. of Peoria, Illinois and Dannette Rumsey, its president and owner, Slep-Tone alleged that Defendants violated the media-shifting policy. This, it asserted, resulted in an improper “passing off” of illegitimate “bootleg” copies of tracks as genuine Slep-Tone tracks.

Slep-Tone contended that when these unauthorized copies were played by Defendants, the pub’s customers would be confused, believing that “they are seeing and hearing a legitimate, authentic Slep-Tone track, when in fact they are seeing an unauthorized copy.” This conduct, it claims, is prohibited trademark and trade dress infringement.

A district court in the Central District of Illinois concluded that Slep-Tone had not plausibly alleged that Defendants’ conduct resulted in consumer confusion as to the source of any tangible good sold in the marketplace and dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint.

The Seventh Circuit agreed. While the appellate court granted that Slep-Tone may have had a plausible complaint of copyright infringement for “theft, piracy, and violation of Slep-Tone’s [media-shifting] policy,” consumer confusion is the touchstone of trademark infringement and such confusion was not present. It stated:

What pub patrons see and hear is the intangible content of the karaoke tracks. They will see Slep-Tone’s trademark and trade dress and believe, rightly, that Slep-Tone is the source of that intangible content. But patrons will neither see nor care about the physical medium from which the karaoke tracks are played; consequently, any confusion is not about the source of the tangible good containing the karaoke tracks.

Because Slep-Tone’s assertions did not constitute trademark infringement or trade dress infringement, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.