Henley v. Duluth Holdings, No. CV 14-7827 DSF (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015).
Don Henley's lawsuit concerning an advertisements for Henley-style shirts that urged customers to “Don a henley, take it easy,” survives defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendant apparel company had argued that the promotion was a joke. The Court found that Defendant has not established that its use of Plaintiff’s name – and the name of one of his band’s most famous songs – in its advertisement was sufficiently transformative on its face that a motion to dismiss should be granted.
January 23, 2015
January 20, 2015
Jay-Z Must Produce Concert Revenue In 'Big Pimpin' Infringement Suit
Fahmy v. Jay-Z, No. 2:07-cv-05715-CAS, 2015 BL 8688 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015).
Jay Z's motion for review of a Magistrate Judge's ruling directing him to produce documents concerning his concert revenues was denied. This action concerns Jay Z's alleged unauthorized sampling of "Khosara, Khosara" from the 1960 Egyptian film Fata Ahlami in his 2000 hit song "Big Pimpin'." A Magistrate Judge had ordered Jay-Z to produce the amount of revenue he earned from concerts where he performed "Big Pimpin' in order to allow the plaintiff to calculate his damages. Jay-Z moved for review of the magistrate's order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). The District Court denied the motion. The magistrate's order was not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." The discovery of concert revenue "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" concerning the existence and amount of damages. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Nor was there evidence that the burden of production was undue.
Jay Z's motion for review of a Magistrate Judge's ruling directing him to produce documents concerning his concert revenues was denied. This action concerns Jay Z's alleged unauthorized sampling of "Khosara, Khosara" from the 1960 Egyptian film Fata Ahlami in his 2000 hit song "Big Pimpin'." A Magistrate Judge had ordered Jay-Z to produce the amount of revenue he earned from concerts where he performed "Big Pimpin' in order to allow the plaintiff to calculate his damages. Jay-Z moved for review of the magistrate's order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). The District Court denied the motion. The magistrate's order was not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." The discovery of concert revenue "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" concerning the existence and amount of damages. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Nor was there evidence that the burden of production was undue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
