Category Archives: Southern District of Indiana

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media v. John Does 1-29 (Lunchtime Fantasy)

20 Wednesday Jun 2012

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-29

Court Case Number:    1:12-cv-00845-TWP-MJD
File Date:    Monday, June 18, 2012
Plaintiff:     Malibu Media, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel:     Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates, PLLC
Defendant:     John Does 1-29
Cause:   Copyright Infringement, Contributory Infringement
Court:    Southern District of Indiana
Judge:     Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

CP Productions v. John Doe – Motion to Subpoena Internet Service Providers

15 Friday Jun 2012

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

For those following the CP Productions v. John Doe BitTorrent lawsuit filed recently in the Southern District of Indiana, I thought I’d detail the first steps in the Plaintiff’s litigation strategy. First, Plaintiff uses its “proprietary P2P network forensic software” to monitor and collect IP addresses of BitTorrent downloaders. They then file a Complaint in the jurisdiction du jour (over the last two years they’ve been filing all over the U.S. looking for courts willing to play along…CP Productions v. John Doe is the first lawsuit of this type filed in Indiana). Plaintiff then files a motion asking the Court to issue a subpoena to the downloaders’ Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to obtain the personal information (name, address) of the John Does. Most courts have granted this motion (see example below).

Once an ISP receives a subpoena, it will contact the downloader, alerting them to the subpoena and that their personal information will be disclosed by a set deadline. Some ISPs have decided to challenge the subpoena, but most have simply played along, presumably happy that they’re not included in the lawsuit. From there, it’s up to the downloader to decide whether to settle, defend themself or just wait and hope the lawsuit gets thrown out. If nothing is done by the ISP’s deadline, the ISP will share the downloaders’ information and the downloader will receive a new letter directly from Plaintiff.

Stay tuned for more updates as the case proceeds. If you have questions, feel free to leave them in the comments. However, there are numerous helpful websites already out there with general information about BitTorrent download cases. I’ll be trying to focus primarily on the specifics of this Indiana case. Coming up…profiles of Plaintiff’s counsel and Judge Magnus-Stinson.

CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe
Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-00808-JMS-DML

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference:

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference:

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – CP Productions v. John Doe

14 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Just weeks after getting its own keyword advertising case, Indiana now has its very own BitTorrent download case. The Plaintiff, CP Productions, is an Arizona-based adult entertainment company and the file allegedly downloaded is “GH Hustlers – Maryjane’s Second Visit.” The Defendant, currently unidentified, is described as a “serial infringer of copyrights in adult content.” Besides a copyright claim, the Plaintiff also makes claims of Civil Conspiracy and Contributory Infringement and provides a list of 448 IP addresses alleged to have participated in a BitTorrent swarm with the named Defendant. If you’re a BitTorrent user, you’ll want to check the list (see Exhibit A below) and see if your IP address appears. If so, you could soon be a part of this lawsuit. That doesn’t mean it’s time to worry but you will want to begin to educate yourself on the case.

I’ll be following this lawsuit closely and will provide updates as it proceeds. If you’re interested in reading more now, check out DieTrollDie, an informative blog discussing this type of download case. Similar cases are going on all over the country with mixed results. Judge Magnus-Stinson is a no-nonsense judge, so it will be interesting to see whether this case can find any traction in her courtroom.

CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe

Court Case Number:    1:12-cv-00808-JMS-DML
File Date:    Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Plaintiff:     CP Productions, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:     Matthew Edward Dumas of Hostetter & O’Hara
Defendant:     John Doe
Cause:    Copyright Infringement, Civil Conspiracy, Contributory Infringement
Court:    Southern District of Indiana
Judge:     Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Exhibit A – IP Addresses of “Civil Conspirators”

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Angie’s List v. ServiceMagic

07 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by in Bloggers, Branding, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Social Media, Southern District of Indiana, Tech Developments, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Indiana finally has its own keyword advertising case!

Local internet powerhouse Angie’s List accuses ServiceMagic of using the “Angie’s List” trademark as a keyword in some of its Google AdWords sponsored link advertisements. While several courts around the country have ruled on this issue, in Indiana it is still undetermined whether the purchase and use of a competitor’s trademark in keyword advertising is trademark infringement.

For those unfamiliar with keyword advertising, see the image below. ServiceMagic pays Google to appear in the “Ads related to” box at the top of the search results for the term “Angie’s List,” directly below Angie’s List’s official site. Big companies hate this practice and small competitors love it. Google really loves it, because advertising is where Google gets a big chunk of their revenue. We’ll soon find out what the Southern District of Indiana, via Judge Sarah Evans Barker, thinks about it.

This is no David and Goliath story either. ServiceMagic’s parent company IAC owns many major web products, including Ask.com, Match.com and Vimeo.

Stay tuned for updates as the case proceeds.

Angie’s List Inc. v. Servicemagic Inc.

Court Case Number:    1:12-cv-00755-SEB-TAB
File Date:    Friday, June 01, 2012
Plaintiff:     Angie’s List Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:     George A. Gasper, Michael A. Wukmer, Bradley M. Stohry of Ice Miller LLP
Defendant:     ServiceMagic Inc.
Cause:    Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Trade Disparagement, Trademark Dilution, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
Court:    Southern District of Indiana
Judge:     Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – APP Press, LLC v. Apress Media, LLC

25 Friday May 2012

Posted by in Indiana, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

APP Press, LLC v. Apress Media, LLC

Court Case Number:    1:12-cv-00718-SEB-DML
File Date:    Thursday, May 24, 2012
Plaintiff:     APP Press, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel:     Jacob R. Cox of Cox Law Firm
Defendant:     Apress Media, LLC
Cause:    Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
Court:    Indiana Southern District Court
Judge:     Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch