Opinion
No. 06 Civ. 13114(VM).
March 31, 2009.
Kenneth S. Feldman, Law Offices of Stephen E. Feldman, P.C., Stephen Edward Feldman, Paul J. Burgo, Steven Michael Crosby, Feldman Law Group, New York, NY, Kevin P. Crosby, Brinkley, Morgan, Solomon, Tatum, Stanley, Lunny Crosby, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Theodore C. Anderson, Kilgore Kilgore, PLLC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.
Barry George Magidoff, Sutton Magidoff, LLP, David Jonathan Saenz, Paul J. Sutton, Greenberg, Traurig, L.L.P., Evan Gourvitz, Fross Zelnick Lehrman Zissu, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff R.F.M.A.S., Inc. ("RFMAS") brought this action against defendants Mimi So, Mimi So International, Inc., Richemont SA, Compagnie Financière Richemont SA, Richemont North America, Richemont Holdings I, and Richemont International, Ltd. (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging, among other things, that Defendants infringed RFMAS's copyright in certain pieces of its "Stella" jewelry line.
On August 11, 2008, RFMAS filed a motion for summary judgment against Mimi So and Mimi So International, Inc. (the "So Defendants"), alleging that pieces in the So Defendants' "Gate B-9" jewelry line directly infringe RFMAS's copyright in certain Stella jewelry designs. In addition, RFMAS asks the Court to rule as a matter of law that RFMAS's copyright in these jewelry items is valid, and that the So Defendants accessed the jewelry. On the same date, RFMAS filed a separate motion for summary judgment against Richemont SA, Compagnie Financière Richemont SA, Richemont North America, Richemont Holdings I, and Richemont International, Ltd. (the "Richemont Defendants"), alleging that the Richemont Defendants contributorily and vicariously infringed RFMAS's copyright in the design of the same "Stella" jewelry items, and again asks the Court to rule as a matter of law that its copyright in the jewelry is valid, and that the Richemont Defendants accessed the jewelry. Both of RFMAS's motions for summary judgment discuss at length the alleged spoliation of evidence committed by the Defendants. RFMAS asks the Court to grant summary judgment in RFMAS's favor or to strike Defendants' answers to the complaint as a sanction for the alleged spoliation.
Although RFMAS's only docketed Notice of Motion (Docket No. 97) states that it is moving for summary judgment against "the Mimi So Defendants," RFMAS filed two separate memoranda of law, one against the So Defendants and one against the Richemont Defendants, each purporting to be in support of motions for summary judgment against those particular defendants.
Also on August 11, 2008, the So Defendants and the Richemont Defendants each filed a motion for summary judgment against RFMAS. The So Defendants assert that: (1) RFMAS's copyright registration is not valid and that RFMAS is not entitled to any presumption of validity based on the registration; (2) RFMAS's copyright infringement claim fails for lack of substantial similarity; and (3) as a matter of law, RFMAS's trade dress and unfair competition claims must fail. The Richemont Defendants ask the Court to rule that: (1) they did not directly, contributorily, or vicariously infringe on RFMAS's works; and (2) they are not liable for trade dress infringement, misappropriation of trade secret information, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment.
A. SPOLIATION
B. PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION OF REGISTRATION VALIDITY
See NBC Subsidiary (KCNC-TV), Inc. v. Broadcast Info. Servs. 717 F. Supp. 1449145117 U.S.C. § 410 Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc. 536 F.3d 121133
The Court notes, without making a ruling as to spoliation, that the cases RFMAS cites for the assertion that summary judgment, dismissal, default judgment and striking of pleadings are appropriate sanctions for spoliation all involve egregious instances of spoliation or attorney misconduct. The Court is not convinced, at this stage, that the allegations of spoliation here, even if true, rise to this level.
As to all remaining issues, after consideration of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact sufficient to warrant the denial of the parties' motions for summary judgment. See Vacold LLC v. Cerami, 545 F.3d 114, 121 (2d Cir. 2008) ("Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.").
The findings, reasoning, and conclusions for the Court's ruling will be set forth in a subsequent decision and order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Docket No. 97) of R.F.M.A.S., Inc. ("RFMAS") for summary judgment as to the So Defendants is DENIED in its entirety; it is further
ORDERED that the motion (Docket No. 97) of RFMAS for summary judgment as to the Richemont Defendants is DENIED in its entirety; it is further
ORDERED that the motion (Docket No. 89) of Richemont SA, Compagnie Financière Richemont SA, Richemont North America, Richemont Holdings I, and Richemont International, Ltd. for summary judgment is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the motion (Docket No. 87) of Mimi So and Mimi So International, Inc. for summary judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.