Voltage Pictures hits a roadblock in Ohio court

Tags

Voltage Pictures, the Plaintiff in several Oregon download cases, has met a roadblock in Ohio federal court in the form of Judge James S. Gwin. Judge Gwin ordered, sua sponte, that Voltage Pictures had improperly joined hundreds of Defendants. The Judge has severed the cases, requiring Voltage to pay appropriate filing fees in order to continue. Here are some highlights and the full Opinion & Order is below:

Because IP addresses are the only identifiers of peers within a BitTorrent system, it is difficult, if not impossible, to learn the true identities of the peers in a swarm.21 To pursue litigation, plaintiffs in BitTorrent suits must attempt to get early discovery to learn of the actual identities of the unnamed defendants.22 The requests have been the subject of much criticism, for the lawsuits are rarely litigated. Rather, plaintiffs seek to take advantage of the resources of federal courts to force small, individual settlements.23

Courts have been troubled by what amounts to be a new business model employed by production companies “misusing the subpoena powers of the court, seeking the identities of the Doe defendants solely to facilitate demand letters and  coerce settlement, rather than ultimately serve process and litigate the claims.”41 This unseemly practice is made worse by the frequent practice of joining hundreds or thousands of defendants in a suit, saving plaintiffs tens of thousands of dollars in filing fees. It is in this environment where courts must take every caution to ensure that the keys to the doors of discovery are not blithely given to parties with other intentions.

Regardless of the dubious practices of others, Plaintiffs may have legitimate claims which deserve litigation. Nevertheless, unnamed Defendants are improperly joined, and in order to continue with their actions, Plaintiffs will need to pay the requisite filing fee per suit.42 Otherwise, Plaintiff has saved over $67,500 by consolidating its claims into four separate actions. If Plaintiffs seek to use the powers of this Court to vindicate its rights, it must pay the requisite fees like every other Plaintiff.

Time will tell if Oregon will make a similar ruling, which essentially shifts some of the financial burden for these download cases from the taxpayer to the Plaintiff.

Opinion & Order, James S. Gwin, United States District Judge:

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – InsightsNow v. SuperPsyched

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff InsightsNow, Inc. is a Corvallis-based company that has been offering a market research service in the consumer packaged goods industry called “BehaviorLens“. Plaintiff’s claimed date of first use in commerce is August 26, 2011. Defendant SuperPsyched is a Colorado based app-maker with an app for tracking student behavior called “BehaviorLENS“. Defendant’s date of first use in commerce is October 11, 2011. In response to an initial cease and desist letter, Defendant apparently made efforts to distinguish its trademark and services but not to the satisfaction of Plaintiff, resulting in this lawsuit.

InsightsNow, Inc. v. SuperPsyched, LLC

Court Case Number: 6:13-cv-00573-TC
File Date: Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Plaintiff: InsightsNow, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Delfina S. Homen, Hillary S. Brooks of Marger Johnson & McCollom PC
Defendant: SuperPsyched, LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin

This is how the download cases would be resolved by Don Draper

Check out an Answer filed in one of the Oregon download cases:

Screen Shot 2013-04-03 at 9.41.40 AMRemember a time when a concerned father and business owner could talk over and settle a dispute involving a teen son “shoplifting”? The question the rest of us should be asking is whether U.S. federal courts are the ideal place to have those conversations? Keep in mind that the administrative expense of these “collections” lawsuits falls largely on the taxpayer.

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – RynoRyder Productions v. Does 1-23

Tags

, , , ,

RynoRyder Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23

Court Case Number: 6:13-cv-00539-TC
File Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013
Plaintiff: RynoRyder Productions, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell, Jonathan T. van Heel of Crowell Law
Defendant: Does 1-23
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Contributory Infringement, Indirect Infringement of Copyright
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin

 

See other Oregon Download Cases.

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Penguin Group v. American Buddha

Tags

, ,

New York-based publisher Penguin Group’s battle against Oregon-based nonprofit American Buddha continues in Oregon after being dismissed in New York for lack of personal jurisdiction. American Buddha has uploaded complete copies of books and other media onto American Buddha’s online library that is accessible by some 50,000 members at no charge. Four of the books posted belong to mega-publisher Penguin, which claims copyright infringement. American Buddha claims (in the American Buddha Online Library Copyright Notice) to be operating safely under 17 U.S.C. Section 108, which exempts libraries and archives from liability for creating reproductions (under certain conditions). It seems a stretch to apply Section 108 to PDFs posted on a website but American Buddha claims to impose “contractual and technical limitations on access to the archive” that could potentially bring it within the contours of 108. “Library” isn’t defined in the Copyright Act but the context of 108 suggests it be interpreted in the traditional manner, as a real, physical location, not an online repository. It seems yet another part of the Copyright Act that might need clarification in the digital age. Stay tuned as the parties sort it out.

Penguin Group(USA) Inc. v. American Buddha

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00497-HU
File Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Plaintiff: Penguin Group(USA) Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Duane A. Bosworth, II, Timothy M. Cunningham of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
Defendant: American Buddha
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – The Thompsons Film v. Does 1-155

Tags

, , , ,

The Thompsons Film, LLC v. Does 1-155

Court Case Number: 6:13-cv-00469-TC
File Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Plaintiff: The Thompsons Film, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell, Jonathan T. van Heel of Crowell Law
Defendant: Does 1-155
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Contributory Infringement, Indirect Infringement of Copyright
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin

 

See other Oregon Download Cases.

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – The Coast Distribution System v. Ezra Distributing

Tags

, , , , , ,

The Coast Distribution System Inc. v. Ezra Distributing, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00451-HU
File Date: Friday, March 15, 2013
Plaintiff: The Coast Distribution System Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Charles H. DeVoe, Thomas James Romano of Kolisch Hartwell, PC
Defendant: Ezra Distributing, Inc.Ezra Retail LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition; Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, and Dilution
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Leonard D. Duboff v. University of Chicago

Tags

, ,

Here’s a trademark dispute involving book titles. Plaintiff writes a series of industry-focused legal education books called “The Law, in Plain English for [insert industry]” (some examples are Photographers, Restaurants, Writers). Essentially, the books are an attempt to help regular folks understand the law that applies to their industry, explained not with legal jargon but “in plain English.”

Defendants publish a book “Legal Writing in Plain English,” frequently used by law students as a textbook in their legal writing courses. It teaches future lawyers (and current lawyers) to write laws and contracts that regular folks can understand, not written in legal jargon but “in plain English.”

Are the books sold in the same marketplace or two independent marketplaces? Industry folks buy one set of books, attorneys buy the other, presumably all for the greater good of comprehensible law. Authors suing authors, lawyers suing lawyers…this could get interesting. Stay tuned for updates.

Leonard D. Duboff v. University of Chicago et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00436-SI
File Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013
Plaintiff: Leonard D. Duboff
Plaintiff Counsel: Anthony Edward McNamer, Deborah E. Gumm of McNamer and Company, PC
Defendant: University of ChicagoLawprose, Inc.Bryan A. Garner
Cause: Trademark Infringement
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Judge Michael H. Simon

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Naked Wines LLC v. Mustache Mentors, Inc.

Tags

, , , , ,

Hood River-based Naked Winery is pursuing a new San Francisco-based winemaker, Naked Rebel Winery, for trademark infringement. It’s not necessarily a slam-dunk case, as there are several other “naked-formative” trademarks used in connection with wine.  Naked Rebel filed it’s own trademark application back in December although there’s been no action yet by a Trademark Examiner. However, based on rejections received in other “naked” applications, it seems the Naked Rebel crew may have to overcome both this lawsuit and then a 2(d) refusal in order to successfully use and register their trademark.

Trademark practitioners, do you prefer to file a trademark complaint prior to an Examiner’s review of a pending trademark application or do you wait for an Examiner’s 2(d) refusal? I’m curious as to your thoughts in either direction.

Naked Wines LLC v. Mustache Mentors, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00402-HZ
File Date: Friday, March 08, 2013
Plaintiff: Naked Wines LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Hillary A. Brooks, Delfina S. Homen of Marger Johnson & McCollom, PC
Defendant: Mustache Mentors, Inc.Mustache Mentors LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Judge Marco A. Hernandez

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Crave Bake Shop v. Crave

Tags

, ,

Is the nation large enough for two bakeries with the word “Crave” in the title? Crave Bake Shop, of Lake Oswego, Oregon, thinks so…and filed this Declaratory Judgment action to get a San Francisco-based Crave off their back. Stay tuned.

Crave Bake Shop, LLC v. Crave, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00392-BR
File Date: Thursday, March 07, 2013
Plaintiff: Crave Bake Shop, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Elizabeth A. Tedesco Milesnick of Miller Nash LLP
Defendant: Crave, LLC
Cause: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Judge Anna J. Brown