Three More Cases Have Come to an End
Louisiana Tech University v. Bel-Mac Roofing
On October 25, 2021, we first published an post about this case, in which Louisiana Tech University Foundation ("LTF") sued Bel-Mac Roofing ("Bel-Mac") for trademark infringement over LTF’s Bulldog mascot logo. LTF alleged that Bel-Mac used a similar logo on its website and products, with the only differences being the addition of spikes and a tag to the image.
After the Complaint was filed, Bel-Mac responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction. In a memorandum accompanying its motion, Bel-Mac did not directly address the allegations but instead argued that the District Court in Louisiana lacked personal jurisdiction over the case. Bel-Mac claimed that it had not conducted business in Louisiana since 2001 and that, according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, LTF would need to prove that Bel-Mac had conducted continuous and systematic business activities in Louisiana to establish jurisdiction. Bel-Mac also asserted that the lack of special circumstances prevented the court from exercising general jurisdiction over the company.
In its Memorandum Ruling, the court partially granted Bel-Mac’s motion, dismissing the case for lack of general personal jurisdiction. However, the court denied the motion regarding specific personal jurisdiction, instead allowing the plaintiffs to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery if they wished to pursue the case further. Additionally, the court denied Bel-Mac’s request to transfer the case to Florida. (9).
Following this ruling, the parties decided to settle the case on September 11, 2024, with each party responsible for paying their own legal fees.
Bell v. Milwaukee Public School System
On February 28, 2022, we published an post discussing a case involving writer Keith Bell ("Bell") and several educational institutions connected to the Milwaukee Board of School Directors (collectively "MPS"). In his complaint, Bell alleged that MPS used and distributed a passage from one of his books to over 700 Twitter users without his authorization.
After requesting an extension to file its response, MPS took nearly five months to do so. In its Motion to Dismiss, MPS first argued that Bell’s Complaint was filed one day beyond the statute of limitations for copyright claims. Under 17 U.S.C. § 507(b), a copyright claim must be filed within three years of the alleged infringement. Since the alleged infringement occurred on February 23, 2019, MPS argued that the claim should have been filed before February 24, 2022.
In response, Bell countered that he had attempted to file the complaint on time but experienced electronic filing issues. Instead, he submitted the Complaint via email to the court clerk. The court declined to dismiss the case based on the statute of limitations, stating that further investigation was needed to verify the reasons behind the delayed filing. The court also indicated that there was sufficient reason to believe the case was timely filed.
However, the court did rule on the fair use defense, which MPS raised, asserting that its use of Bell’s work fell within the fair use exemption. In its Order, the court found that the re-tweets containing Bell’s book passage were for noncommercial purposes. While the work was creative, the court determined that the amount of material used was minimal and that the effect on Bell’s market was insignificant since the same quote was widely available online for free, including on Bell’s own website.
Based on these findings, the court upheld MPS’s fair use defense and dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. As a result, Bell was ordered to pay all legal fees associated with the case.
Eichelberger v. Hudson McKinney
Many months following the filing of a Motion to Dismiss, the case Eichelberger v. Hudson-McKinney finally came to an end. In our last post, we discussed how Judge Scarci dismissed the plaintiff's injunctive relief and the reverse passing off claim. Following that decision, the defendant filed a Counterclaim seeking the cancellation of the copyright registration obtained by Eichelberger. The defendant alleged that Eichelberger provided false information during the copyright application process by claiming that the slides and videos were derivative works of a neurology textbook. (3). Eichelberger denied these allegations and demanded a jury trial to resolve the case.
Given this situation, the court issued an Order requiring the parties to engage in settlement discussions before proceeding to trial. Judge Kim scheduled a settlement conference and ordered that all parties have representatives with full authority present at the meeting to negotiate and agree to a settlement. He emphasized that "[t]he parties [should] attempt in good faith to resolve the case before the Settlement Conference, and that failing to do so could result in sanctions, including the imposition of fees and costs." (4, 7).
The attempt to settle the case was successful. One month after the court’s Order, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement, agreeing that each party would be responsible for their own attorneys’ fees, and later filed a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal.