Judge Mazzant granted the prevailing plaintiff’s application for profits, attorneys fees and costs, arising out of the defendant’s violation of the injunction against improper listings of cer-tain guitars. The court’s ruling has some helpful analysis on attorney’s fees.
Judge Mazzant granted the application for fees and costs only in part, finding the request inadequately supported as fees. Accordingly, the prevailing plaintiff only recovered its costs.
Judge Mazzant concluded that the request for email service was not prohibited by international agreement, and was reasonably calculated to notify the defendant of the case and give it an opportunity to present objections, given the cost and delay associated with traditional means of service in the case.
Judge Mazzant denied the defendants’ attempts to set aside the jury’s verdict in this trademark/RICO case, and directed the parties to bear their own costs of court.
Judge Mazzant granted the plaintiff’s motion for civil contempt due to the defendant’s violations of the permanent injunction in this case based on infringing guitars, but declined to consider the arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief (helpfully noting that the plaintiff should “feel free to file a new motion for civil contempt” as to those issues).
The court thought that this would perhaps better be labeled as a motion for reconsideration, and granted it only in part, ordering all the documents submitted for in camera review produced without redaction.
The court found that some of the affirmative defenses would be stricken as insufficient in this copyright case.
The issue here was the addition of a party the plaintiff claimed it wasn’t on notice was the proper defendant.
Judge Mazzant denied the request for injunctive relief.
The issue here was whether the plaintiff must produce communications regarding an issue of intentional abandonment of an application.
