The prevailing defendant in this copyright case sought an award of fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505. Judge Gilstrap’s opinion sorted through the claims and the parties’ alleged conduct in the case before finally determining the appropriateness of an award of fees, thus giving parties some guidance on when an award of fees in a copyright case is appropriate.
If I told you this is about default judgments, would you really be as interested? Well, you should, because this is a case dealing with copyright damages that you might find a use for.
The court granted the motion in this trademark case, finding that the plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over the moving defendant.
The court found that a website owned by the defendant contained multiple violations of the court’s active order in this trademark case. It rejected the defendant’s assertion that the website was a “test” website left up accidentally excused its presence. The sanction was that the defendant would bear the full cost of an upcoming mediation, as well as reasonable attorneys fees associated with the filing of the motion and the discovery of the violation.
This is a trademark dispute in which Judge Ellison decided that the defendants motion to transfer should be granted to the first-filed court, here the WDTX. If you’re looking for an explication of the “first-to-file” rule, look no further.
This is a gray- goods trademark infringement case. The court recommended denying the defendants motion for summary judgment, and granted the plaintiffs in part.
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 Ezra denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law and intertwined motion for new trial in this copyright infringement case.
Senior Judge Nowlin found that the plaintiff had properly alleged copyright validity, but that copyright management information (“CMI”) claims require an additional element be pleaded, that of an underlying act of infringement. The court denied the motion to transfer, finding that venue was more convenient for the Austin–headquartered plaintiff in the Austin Division and that all of the cited witnesses are party witnesses, who are considered less key to the decision, writing that “[a] court should tightly focus on the convenience of key nonparty witnesses when making a transfer decision.”
Judge Brown granted part of the injunctive relief requested, finding that the plaintiffs had established all four requirements for a preliminary injunction relating to their Lanham Act claims as well as their breach of contract claim relating to the post-termination non-competition covenant.
