s

Tag Archives: SDNY

Lewis & Lin Obtains Dismissal of Copyright Case Against Fashion Designer

On the heels of New York Fashion Week (#NYFW), Lewis & Lin achieved a victory for our client, Kirat Anand, in a case involving a fashion designer’s liability for alleged copyright infringement.  Lewis & Lin’s client, Mr. Anand is the founder and lead designer for the KAS NEW YORK™ fashion label, owned by Dani II, Inc.

Bonita Fabrics, Inc. obtained a default judgment in California against our client, and sought to enforce that judgment in New York.  Lewis & Lin filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the original California court lacked personal jurisdiction over Mr. Anand because he did not personally conduct any business in California, nor did he or Dani II sell the allegedly infringing garments, or any garments, in California.  Judge Robert Sweet of the Southern District of New York agreed with Lewis & Lin on all points and dismissed the case in its entirety.

Copyright litigation is an unfortunate cost of doing business in the fashion industry, as are the tactics employed by lawyers who make a living bringing dubious infringement suits.  It is even more unfortunate when such lawyers contact or involve customers in their attempts to extract exorbitant settlement payments.

The decision in the case, Bonita Fabrics, Inc. v. Kirat Anand, an individual, dba KAS New York, 12 Misc. 408 (S.D.N.Y.), can be accessed here.

About Lewis & Lin, LLC:

Lewis & Lin, LLC is an Internet and Intellectual Property law firm based in Brooklyn, New York. The firm’s highly experienced legal team has helped clients worldwide secure their IP rights, as well as anticipate and resolve a diverse range of IP issues. Lewis & Lin’s particular expertise lies in Internet transactions and disputes, including domain name licensing and sale agreements, domain name hijacking claims, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) disputes, and Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) litigation. The team also expertly handles licensing agreements, website user agreements, service agreements and privacy policies, as well as Internet-related trademark and copyright litigation. For further information, visit www.ilawco.com.

Lewis & Lin Obtains Fee Award in Personal Name Cybersquatting Case

In a case of first impression under 15 U.S.C. 8131 — the personal name cybersquatting provision of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act — Lewis & Lin obtained a court order awarding attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party under the ACPA.

Section 8131 of the ACPA imposes civil liability on “[a]ny person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name.  Under the ACPA, the court may issue and injunction and, “in its discretion, award costs and attorneys fees to the prevailing party.”

Noting that “[t]here is little caselaw providing guidance on an award of fees under section 8131 of the ACPA,” the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York analyzed Lewis & Lin’s request under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) — the standard for an award of fees under the Lanham (U.S. Trademark) Act.  Citing a California case, the court ruled that in determining whether to award attorneys’ fees, courts should consider “a number of factors, including the egregiousness or willfulness of the defendant’s cybersquatting . . . and other behavior by the defendant evidencing an attitude of contempt towards the court of the proceedings.”  The court found that in the current case, the defendant’s conduct merited an award of attorneys’ fees.

First, “the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s name in the domains was sufficiently willful.”  Second, the “defendant has evidenced contempt towards the Court throughout these proceedings.”  Accordingly, the Court ordered that “attorneys’ fees are warranted in this ACPA action.”  

Lewis & Lin Partner David D. Lin was the lead attorney on this matter.  The case is No. 11 Civ. 8093 (KBF) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Please contact us if you would like a copy of the opinion.

Lewis & Lin Obtains Fee Award in Personal Name Cybersquatting Case

In a case of first impression under 15 U.S.C. 8131 — the personal name cybersquatting provision of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act — Lewis & Lin obtained a court order awarding attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party under the ACPA.

Section 8131 of the ACPA imposes civil liability on “[a]ny person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name.  Under the ACPA, the court may issue and injunction and, “in its discretion, award costs and attorneys fees to the prevailing party.”

Noting that “[t]here is little caselaw providing guidance on an award of fees under section 8131 of the ACPA,” the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York analyzed Lewis & Lin’s request under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) — the standard for an award of fees under the Lanham (U.S. Trademark) Act.  Citing a California case, the court ruled that in determining whether to award attorneys’ fees, courts should consider “a number of factors, including the egregiousness or willfulness of the defendant’s cybersquatting . . . and other behavior by the defendant evidencing an attitude of contempt towards the court of the proceedings.”  The court found that in the current case, the defendant’s conduct merited an award of attorneys’ fees.

First, “the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s name in the domains was sufficiently willful.”  Second, the “defendant has evidenced contempt towards the Court throughout these proceedings.”  Accordingly, the Court ordered that “attorneys’ fees are warranted in this ACPA action.”  

Lewis & Lin Partner David D. Lin was the lead attorney on this matter.  The case is No. 11 Civ. 8093 (KBF) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Please contact us if you would like a copy of the opinion.