two patterns are clear when individuals as well as industrial establishments are sued for alleged piracy of UFC pay per view events.  When Defendant’s stop working to respond Zuffa as well as their industrial distributors do go after default judgement so it is not smart to neglect the litigation.  Secondly, when seeking damages Zuffa as well as their industrial distributors frequently seek damages far in excess of what courts are prepared to tolerate.

Adding to this site’s archived judgments of lawsuits addressing UFC piracy claims, further reasons for judgement were released last week by the united states district Court, E.D. California, consistent with the above pattern.

In last week’s situation (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Gonzales) the Defendant, who operated a industrial establishment, was sued for piracy after airing UFC 152 without paying the sub licencing charge of $1,600 allowing him to do so.  He was sued as well as failed to respond.  The Plaintiff obtained default judgement.  The Plaintiff sought $111,6000 in damages for the piracy.  The Court was not impressed with the requested maximum damages as well as instead discovered an award of $6,000 was proper in the circumstances.  In discovering the lesser award was called for Magistrate judge Gary Austin provided the complying with reasons:

Here, Plaintiff requests enhanced statutory damages of $100,000.00, however fails to support its request for the maximum Camiseta Real Madrid damages authorized by the statute with certain facts relating to the instant violation. The Court has discretion to boost the award of damages for each infraction in an amount up to $100,000 when a “violation was committed willfully as well as for functions of direct or indirect industrial advantage or monetary gain.” Backman, 102 F.Supp.2d at 1198. However, Plaintiff’s request for $100,000 in enhanced damages is based on a 3-minute investigation, a type affidavit from its investigator, as well as briefing that appears mainly to be boilerplate. See J & J sports Prods., Inc. v. Montano, 2013 WL 1680633, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2013) (No. 1:12-cv-00738-AWI-SAB) (“Determining whether Defendant’s actions were willful or egregious is hampered since Plaintiff filed a short with minimal analysis of the facts certain to this case.”). Although the Court appreciates Plaintiff’s arguments relating to the requirement to deter piracy as well as its citations to cases awarding considerable damages, there Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Australia is no evidence before the Court that details the certain monetary as well as industrial effect of the infraction at problem in this case.

As discussed above with regard to the statutory damages requested by Plaintiff, the most famous truth supporting the imposition of enhanced statutory damages is that accused is a repeat offender. However, again, Plaintiff’s counsel does not specify whether the other violations at problem were egregious, or whether the instant infraction occurred in spite of a prior judgment as well as damages award against the Defendant. Were accused Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Alemania to have committed the instant infraction in spite of a previous judgment as well as damages award against him, the final thought that accused was acting willfully as well as deserving of an “especially serious monetary deterrent” would be justified. Backman,102 F.Supp.2d at 1199 (“egregious willfulness” may “warrant harsh punitive damages”). right here the record does not support the final thought that the accused acted with egregious willfulness as well as for functions of direct or indirect industrial advantage or monetary gain. The Court cannot award the statutory maximum amount of enhanced damages without appropriate factual support for such an award in Plaintiff’s moving papers. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Streshly, 655 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1139 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (finding Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.’s request for $100,000.00 in enhanced damages plus $875.00 in other damages “particularly distressing since Plaintiff (and Plaintiff’s counsel) has undoubtedly filed these piracy lawsuits before, as well as need to understand that $100,875 is an implausible award”). Nonetheless, in light of the allegation that Plaintiff is a repeat offender, the Court will award enhanced statutory damages in the amount of $1000.00.

Advertisement

Share this:
Twitter
Facebook

Like this:
Like Loading…

Related

Internet viewing of UFC PPV Sidetracks Piracy ProsecutionSeptember 20, 2016In “piracy”
Zuffa uses Copyright Act To boost damages against PPV PiracyOctober 28, 2017In “piracy”
Zuffa v. Piracy – costly lessons in Default JudgementMarch 10, 2014In “piracy”