This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement
Trademark Infringement

Fifty Shades Limited, Universal City Studios LLC v. Smash Pictures LLC, LUV Moves, Daniel Quinn, Stuart Wall, James Lane aka Jim Powers, Right Ascension Inc. dba Adult DVD Empire, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

Published: May 10, 2014 | Result Date: May 8, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:12-cv-10111-PSG-SH Bench Decision –  Permanent Injunction

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Andrew J. Thomas
(Jenner & Block LLP)

David R. Singer
(Jenner & Block LLP)

Lisa J. Kohn


Defendant

Howard A. Kroll
(Tucker Ellis LLP)


Facts

Fifty Shades Ltd. and Universal City Studios LLC sued Smash Pictures LLC, LUV Moves, Daniel Quinn, Stuart Wall, James Lane aka Jim Powers, and Right Ascension Inc. dba Adult DVD Empire, in connection with E L James's novel series, the "Fifty Shades Trilogy."

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Fifty Shades Ltd. held certain trademarks and copyrights in the Fifty Shade Trilogy, while Universal owned the exclusive rights to produce and distribute motion pictures based on the trilogy. Defendants produced, marketed, and distributed an adult film entitled: "Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation" and "This Isn't Fifty Shades of Grey XXX: This is a Parody". Plaintiffs claimed defendants took the dialogue, characters, and storyline from the Fifty Shades Trilogy, which constituted blatant copyright and trademark infringement and unfair competition in the marketing and sales of their infringing works.

Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for copyright infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, false advertising, dilution of famous mark, California statutory unfair competition, California statutory false advertising, and California common law unfair competition. Plaintiffs also sought an injunction against defendants.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied plaintiffs' allegations of copyright and trademark infringement. Defendants also contended that their conduct constituted fair use of any alleged copyrighted material and the purported trademarks. They also filed a counterclaim against plaintiffs, seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity.

Result

The parties agreed to a settlement, whereby defendants agreed to be permanently enjoined from further infringement. As a result, defendants could no longer distribute, publish, market, sell, or advertise the XXX Adaptation.


#84577

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390