Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC

10 Citing cases

  1. Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum

    721 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D. Mass. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that “an award of $2,250 per song, three times the statutory minimum, is the outer limit of what a jury could reasonably (and constitutionally) impose in this case”

    Nevertheless, even in a copyright infringement action, there should be some nexus between the jury's statutory damages award and the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and the profits, if any, obtained by the defendant. 4 Nimmer Nimmer, supra, § 14.04[E][1][a], at 14-95; id. at 14-96 ("[S]tatutory damages . . . should be woven out of the same bolt of cloth as actual damages."); see also Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d at 1048 ("[A]lthough Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages."); Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, 388 F. Supp. 2d 435, 443 (D. Del. 2005) ("[T]he amount of a statutory damages award must also take into account the actual profits earned by the defendant and revenues lost by the plaintiff."); Bly v. Banbury Books, Inc., 638 F. Supp. 983, 987 (E.D. Pa. 1986) ("[N]umerous courts have held that assessed statutory damages should bear some relation to the actual damages suffered."); RSO Records, Inc. v. Peri, 596 F. Supp. 849, 862 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ("Undoubtedly assessed statutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered."). In fact, Senator Orrin Hatch, a sponsor of the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, which increased section 504(c)'s statutory damages ranges to their current levels, stated in remarks regarding a predecessor of that bill, "In most cases, courts attempt to do justice by fixing the statutory damages at a level that approximates actual damages and defendant's profits."

  2. In re Supermedia, Inc.

    Case No. 13-10546(KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 29, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    SuperMedia did not challenge YPPI's registrations at trial. Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, 388 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D. Del. 2005) ("since Webloyalty has copyright registrations for its Banner and Sell Page, CI must overcome the presumption that Webloyalty owns valid copyrights"). Accordingly, YPPI has satisfied the first element for proving copyright infringement.

  3. Bisgaard v. Bitgood

    Civil Action 4:22-CV-03279 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2024)

    The defendant's knowledge need not be proven directly, but may be inferred from the defendant's conduct. See Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, 388 F.Supp.2d 435, 441 (D. Del. 2005).

  4. Grondin v. Fanatics, Inc.

    Civil Action 22-1946 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2023)

    Such a registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated therein. See Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, 388 F.Supp.2d 435, 440 (D. Del. 2005). Fanatics argues, however, that the facts stated in Mr, Grondin's registration themselves call into question the validity of his copyright for two reasons.

  5. Live Face on Web, LLC v. Rockford Map Gallery, LLC

    Civil Action 17-539 (D. Del. Oct. 19, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    I. LEGAL STANDARD Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that a court “in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs” to any party in a copyright action, and “the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.” 17 U.S.C. § 505. “[A]n award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs tends to be the rule rather than the exception in actions for copyright infringement.” Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, 388 F.Supp.2d 435, 443 (D. Del. 2005) (quoting Compendia Songs v. On Top Comm., LLC, No. 04-cv-252, 2004 WL 2898070, at *5 (D. Del. Nov. 15, 2004)); Lowe v. Loud Records, 126 Fed.

  6. Markham Concepts, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc.

    C. A. 15-419 WES (D.R.I. Nov. 5, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Neither did Plaintiffs make false assertions. See Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, 388 F.Supp.2d 435, 444 (D. Del. 2005) (awarding fees and costs where, “on the record presented, [the] assertions were' so outlandish as to offend any reasonable concept of the truth, ” “wast[ing] the resources of its opponent and this court by persisting with an objectively unreasonable strategy”).

  7. Michael Grecco Prods. v. GlowImages, Inc.

    C.A. No. 18-902-MN (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    That law is set forth in Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, [388 F. Supp. 2d 435, 441 (D. Del. 2005)]. As stated earlier, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant knew that its rights under the agreements had expired but, nevertheless, continued to display and offer licenses for the works on its website.

  8. Flowserve Corporation v. Hallmark Pump Company, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-cv-0675 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2011)   Cited 13 times

    Moreover, the defendant's knowledge need not be proven directly, but may be inferred from the defendant's conduct. See Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, 388 F. Supp. 2d 435, 441 (D. Del. 2005). Flowserve argues that Hallmark's acts of copyright infringement were willful. Indeed, even after the Cease-and-Desist Letter, Flowserve argues, Hallmark continued to use the contested images on its website.

  9. Mitchell International, Inc. v. Fraticelli

    CIVIL NO. 03-1031 (GAG/BJM) (D.P.R. Nov. 26, 2007)   Cited 4 times

    Moreover, although the plaintiff requesting statutory damages does not have to prove its own actual damages or the amount the infringer profited from his conduct, courts have considered these amounts when awarding statutory damages in a case. See, e.g.,Webloyalty.com v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, 388 F.Supp. 2d 435 (D.Del. 2005). In this case, Rodríguez derived considerable profits from his infringement of Mitchell's copyrights. The evidence establishes that Rodríguez performed approximately 307 unauthorized installations of updated UltraMate programs, for which he received $150 each for a total of in excess of $46,000.

  10. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Disco Azteca Distributors, Inc.

    446 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (E.D. Cal. 2006)   Cited 26 times
    Noting it is "well established that the right to attribution is not a protected right under the Copyright Act"

    In support of its argument for a finding of willfulness, plaintiffs cite district court cases where the courts find willfulness after a trial on the merits or appellate decisions upholding findings of willfulness made after a trial on the merits. See e.g. Webloyalty.com, Inc. v. Consumer Innovations, LLC, 388 F. Supp. 2d 435, 441 (D. Del. 2005) (finding willfulness after a bench trial); BMG Music v. Perez, 952 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming willfulness finding made after bench trial); Yurman Design, 262 F.3d at 113 (affirming jury's finding of willfulness); Dolman v. Agee, 157 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming finding of willfulness made after bench trial); N.A.S., Import, 968 F.2d at 253 (reversing trial court's finding of no willfulness found after a bench trial);see also Granada Sales Corp. v. Aumer, 2003 WL 21383821, *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding willfulness after default judgment entered). These cases are inapposite here as they do not address the willfulness issue as presented on a motion for summary judgment; at this stage, in determining whether a triable issue of fact remains, the court must construe the facts in favor of defendant and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.