Articles Posted in Copyright Infringement

 

Hammond, IN – Copyright lawyers for WB Music Corporation and six other music companies filed a copyright infringement suit alleging Langel’s, Inc. of Highland, Indiana infringed three copyrighted songs. Specifically, the songs at issue are: VOGUE by Madonna, FALLIN by Alicia Keys, and HEART OF ROCK AND ROLL by Huey Lewis, all of which have been registered by the US Copyright Office. WB Music has also filed the claims against Rodney D. Langel, the president of Langel’s, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Langel’s owns and operates Rodney’s Sports Bar and Langel’s Pizza in Highland, Indiana. WB alleges that the three songs at issue were performed at these establishments without license from the copyright owners in May 2008. The plaintiffs in this suit are the owners of the rights to these songs. WB Music and the others allege that Langel’s Inc. and Mr. Langel had been warned by the American Society of Composers, Artists, and Publishers (ASCAP) about its liability for copyright infringement. The complaint makes three claims of copyright infringement pursuant 17 U.S.C. § 501.

Practice Tip: In this case, the plaintiffs have sued Mr. Langel, the president of Langel’s, Inc., personally. Copyright laws allow an officer of a corporation to be held liable for the corporation’s copyright infringement if the officer contributes to the infringement by inducing or encouraging the infringement. An officer can also be liable for copyright infringement if the officer supervises the infringing conduct and has a direct financial benefit from the infringement.

This case has been assigned to Judge Theresa Springmann and Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry in the Northern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 2:11-cv-00166-TLS-PRC.
Continue reading

 

Indianapolis, IN – This week Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana is presiding over a jury trial of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The case is Harvest Scents & Traders LLC v. KMI International Corporation. The trial began on Monday, May 2, continued through last week, and resumed on Monday. According to the latest information available on PACER, the trial continues today.

Copyright attorneys for Harvest Scents, of Indianapolis, filed this copyright infringement lawsuit in March 2008. The complaint alleges that KMI, an Illinois company, has sold and distributed products that contained material that Harvest Scents has copyrighted. There are six works at issue that registered by the US Copyright Office:

Willow Tree, registration number VA 1-380-918

Primitive Pear Collection, registration number VA 1-421-622

Primitive Wood Button Collection, registration number VA 1-421-623

Baskets-n-Berries Collection, registration number VA 1-424-839

Homespun Collection, registration number VA 1-421-620

Roughsawn Collection, registration number VA 1-424-205

The trial began following several recent rulings on evidentiary matters by Judge McKinney. On February 28, 2011, Judge McKinney denied KMI’s motion in limine to preclude Harvest Scents from introducing evidence at trial of its products that it had not deposited with the US Copyright Office when it submitted its copyright application. KMI had argued that “the introduction of this evidence will invite the jury to find that KMI infringed on unregistered derivative works, unduly prejudicing KMI because Harvest Scents may not bring suit based on infringement of unregistered works, 17 U.S.C. § 411.” The court rejected this argument and allowed the evidence at trial. The court explained, “Direct copying of the registered work is not necessary to infringe, so long as the protected elements are copied. See JCW Invs., Inc. v. Novelty Inc., 482 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that the elements of infringement include “copying of constituent elements”); see also KnowledgeAZ, Inc., 617 F. Supp. 2d at 789.” This ruling is available here.
Continue reading

 

New York – The New York Times reported earlier this week on Righthaven, LLC, a company that has sued hundreds of bloggers for copyright violation. The N.Y. Times story profiles one such blogger, Brian Hill, a 20 year-old North Carolina resident, who was sued by Righthaven after he used a photo of an airport security pat-down on his blog. Righthaven has filed over 250 copyright infringement lawsuits since its founding in 2010, including 24 in March 2011. According to reports, its business model is to purchase assignments of copyrights from newspapers and similar organizations and then search for infringing web postings to sue their publishers.

A Google search on Righthaven reveals that there are numerous websites devoted to condemning Righthaven, calling the company “a bottom feeding legal outfit” and “copyright trolls.” As the N.Y. Times story reported, copyright attorneys have questioned whether the fair use doctrine might protect some of the bloggers sued by Righthaven. The Media Bloggers Association has filed an amicus curiae brief support the rights of the bloggers and raising First Amendment issues. Other attorneys have accused Righthaven of fraud, according to a report from the Las Vegas Sun.

Practice Tip: Although Righthaven has not filed any copyright infringement lawsuits in Indiana district courts to date, this story illustrates the importance of ensuring that a web blogger has rights to use all materials that are posted on the blog. This story brings forth yet again the continuing controversies surrounding copyrights and the Internet.

 

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark and copyright lawyers for Coach of New York, New York filed two trademark and copyright infringement suit alleging that Indiana companies and individuals infringed several trademark and copyright registrations in the US Trademark Office and the US Copyright Office.

In the first infringement lawsuit, Coach alleges that Chaos of Muncie, Chaos on Campus, LLC and Teresa Barnes of Muncie, Indiana have been offering for sale and advertising Coach knock-off products. The complaint alleges that in February, the store was offering for sale fifty-five Coach knock-off items including flip-flops, handbags, wallets, and sunglasses. The complaint alleges trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, forgery, and counterfeiting.

Continue reading

 

Indianapolis, IN – Pro se plaintiff Angela Ethel Brooks-Ngwenya of Fort Wayne, Indiana filed a copyright infringement suit alleging Indianapolis Public Schools (I.P.S.) infringed the copyrighted work “TIRS”-Transitioning Into Responsible Students, which has been registered by the US Copyright Office, Registration Number TX0006628223 / 2006-05-26.

Ms. Brook-Ngwenya has previously sued I.P.S. over alleged copyright infringement of TIRS, which Ms. Brooks-Ngwenya claims is an educational program she developed while working at I.P.S. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the case two years ago, after determining that Ms. Brook-Ngwenya had not filed a notice to the Register of Copyrights. The Seventh Circuit Court opinion can be found here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1349120.html. In her present lawsuit, Ms. Brooks-Ngwenya alleges copyright infringement and that an attorney involved committed misconduct in the prior case.

This case has been assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore in the Southern District of Indianaand assigned case no. 1:11-cv-00483-SEB-MJD.
Continue reading

 South Bend, IN – An intellectual property attorney for Garden Homes, of St. Joseph County, Indiana, filed a copyright and trade dress infringement lawsuit against Charles and Maura Weis, of Florida, and Ryan Rans, of Indiana. Charles Weis is the former head coach of the Notre Dame‘s football team. The copyrighted work is custom plans for homes and has been registered by the US Copyright Office.
Continue reading

 South Bend, IN – Copyright lawyers for Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) of New York filed a copyright infringement suit alleging Olive’Or Twist Bar of Elkhart, Indiana and its owner infringed the copyrights of the copyrights to certain songs to which BMI owns the exclusive broadcast license. Nine other companies, the copyright owners of the songs at issue, have also joined the copyright infringement lawsuit as plaintiffs.
Continue reading

 

Indianapolis, IN – Last week Mary E. Hining, Pro Se, of Durham, NC filed a copyright infringement suit against Rebecca L. Gregg of Indianapolis in the Southern District of Indiana. Ms. Hining alleges that Ms. Gregg sold painted glassware on Etsy.com, a website where artists offer their work for sale, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501. Ms. Hining owns Copyright Registration No. VA0001718592, which copyrighted work HAND-PAINTED GLASSWARE DESIGNED BY MARYWIBIS ALSO KNOWN AS MARYELIZABETHARTS. The copyright is registered by the US Copyright Office.

Ms. Hining creates and sells champagne tasting glasses with hand painted leaves and branches of various types of trees on Etsy.com under the name marywibis. She has copyrighted her work and registered the copyright with the US Copyright Office. In the complaint, which Ms. Hining filed on her own and with out the assistance of a copyright attorney, Ms. Hining alleges that Ms. Gregg offers for sale on Etsy.com glasses that are virtually identical and that infringe upon Ms. Hining’s copyright. Ms. Gregg offers the glasses under the name gnome292. Ms. Hining is seeking an injunction and damages.

Continue reading

 

Indianapolis – Last week, copyright attorneys for Joe Hand Promotions, a Pennsylvania corporation, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the owners of an Indiana bar who alleged displayed an Ultimate Fight Championship fight without authorization.

Ursula and Guenter Grote operate the Grote Trading Post and Gus’s Sports Bar in Lawrenceburg, Indiana. Joe Hand Promotions owns exclusive rights to distribute the Ultimate Fight Championship television broadcast on March 3, 2009, UFC broadcast #96. The complaint, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that the Grotes displayed the fight in their bar without authorization from Joe Hand Promotions. According to the complaint, Joe Hand’s copyright attorneys are unsure whether the Grote’s used satellite or cable television network to show the fight. The copyright attorneys therefore allege that the Grotes violated either 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) or 47 U.S.C. § 553. Joe Hand is seeking damages of up to $110,000, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Most Satellite signal providers employ encryption to limit reception to certain groups, such as paying subscribers. If an individual has a “residential” agreement with a satellite provider, this does not give them the right to display the performance in a public setting like a bar or restaurant. This is the third copyright infringement lawsuit making similar claims that Joe Hand Promotions has filed in the Southern District of Indiana since 2010.

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate William G. Hussmann. The docket number is 4:11-CV-016-RLY-WGH.
Continue reading

 

Indianapolis, IN – Copyright lawyers for Dion Designs of Quebec, Canada have filed an infringement suit against Allwin Powersports, Corporation, Inc., Arthur Liao, MHR Helmet Co., Ltd., Foshan Shunde Fengxing Helmets, Ltd., and Jiangmen Pengcheng Helmets, Ltd. Plaintiff Dion claims he is a famous designer of helmets, who signed an agreement in 2005 with the Defendants to receive $0.50 for each helmet sold using Dion’s deigns. Defendants paid Dion for some helmets, but terminated the agreement around 2010. However, Dion claims that Defendants used some of Dion’s latest designs to make several new helmets. While some of these designs have been marketed by the Defendants in Europe, Dion fears that they will be offered in the US at the Dealer Expo 2011 on February 18 – 20, 2011 in Indianapolis. Dion claims that he filed copyright applications and design patent applications on his designs, although none of those applications has resulted in a registration or issued patent.

The complaint asserts a veritable “kitchen sink” of claims, such as a Lanham Act claim based on a misrepresentation that Defendants have “authority to import and sell such products, without disclosing the absence of a valid license or agreement with the designer.” Claims are also alleged for copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, conversion, unfair competition, and for declaratory relief. Dion’s complaint is also accompanied by a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to bar the “displaying or promoting” of the allegedly infringing helmets at the Dealer Expo on February 18-20, 2011, or on the Internet.

Practice Note: The Plaintiffs’ complaint appears to have several inconsistencies. The Lanham Act claim based on a “failure to disclose” is highly unusual; normally, a Lanham Act claim is predicated on an overt misrepresentation as to source. Although Dion states that the Defendants’ claim that the helmets were “designed in Europe” is false, even if this is the case, it is hard to see how the Plaintiff is harmed, especially since the complaint states that “Dion’s plans to make commercial use of those designs have been placed on hold.” The copyright infringement claim is suspect because, as discussed elsewhere on this site, the Plaintiffs did not obtain a copyright registration before filing a suit. Also, to support the trade secret misappropriation claim, the plaintiff claims that his designs “derive substantial commercial value from not being generally known.” However, even if the Plaintiffs’ designs were once “not generally known,” they certainly are now since the Plaintiff: (a) attached them to his complaint, (b) filed them with the US Copyright Office, and because (c) the designs are alleged to been sold in Europe for some time. Dion’s claim for “conversion” also appears to be preempted by the Copyright Act. Finally, it seems that Dion will have difficulty establishing the “irreparable harm” factor necessary to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, since his predominant complaint is that he has not received his $0.50 per royalty license fee.

Continue reading

Contact Information