update – the below judgement was finalized here.

__________________________

Adding to this site’s archived messages addressing battle sports piracy, reasons for judgement were released just recently by the us district Court, ED California, assessing damages for the industrial piracy of UFC 173.

In the recent situation (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc v. Ahmadi) the accused Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Estados Unidos displayed UFC 173 in a industrial establishment without paying the industrial sub licencing fees.  The Plaintiff sued as well as acquired default judgement.  The Plaintiff sought maximum statutory damages of $110,000 however the Court rejected this request as well as instead awarded damages totaling $6,000 Magistrate judge Deborah Barnes offered the complying with reasons:

Under the federal communications Act, a plaintiff may elect to seek either actual or statutory damages…. The statute offers for statutory damages for every infraction of not less than $1,000 as well as not much more than $10,000, as the court considers just… Plaintiff seeks the maximum award of $10,000. The statute likewise authorizes improved damages of not much more than $100,000 if the court discovers the infraction was “committed willfully as well as for function of direct or indirect industrial advantage or personal monetary gain.” ….. “[T]he simple assertion that accused acted willfully is insufficient to validate improved damages.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Backman, 102 F.Supp.2d 1196, 1198 (N.D. Cal. 2000).

Here, plaintiff seeks $100,000 in improved statutory damages. Plaintiff argues that the requested amount is justified mainly since of the requirement to deter broadcast piracy because of the damage done to plaintiff’s company as a result of such activities. In identifying whether improved statutory damages are appropriate, courts typically think about “repeated violations over an prolonged period of time; considerable unlawful monetary gains; considerable actual damages to plaintiff; defendant’s advertising for the meant broadcast of the event; defendant’s charging a cover fee or charging premiums for food as well as drinks.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 544 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1185 (D. Colo. 2008) (quotation omitted).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit from its detective specifying that during the airing of the program at defendant’s establishment the detective observed a maximum of 26 patrons inside the establishment as well as that there was no cover fee to go into the establishment. (ECF No. 14-3 at 2.) Plaintiff has come ahead without any evidence of any type of promotion by accused that the fight would be shown at the establishment, that a Camiseta Cruz Azul special premium on food or drink was being charged at the establishment on the night of the program, or that the establishment was doing any type of higher level of company on the night the program was shown than at any type of other time. As acknowledged by plaintiff, there are “no egregious circumstanced noted” in this action. (Pl.’s MDJ (ECF No. 14-1) at 11.) Moreover, plaintiff has provided no evidence to the court suggesting that the accused is a repeat broadcast piracy offender.[3]

In light of this record, the undersigned discovers plaintiff’s disagreement in support of improved statutory damages to be unpersuasive as well as not supported by the weight of authority in this area. Accordingly, the undersigned will suggest that judgment be went into against the defaulted defendant, as well as that plaintiff be awarded $6,000 in statutory damages, without any award for improved statutory damages, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i & ii). See J & J sports productions Inc. v. Ocampo, situation No. 1:16-cv-0559 LJO JLT, 2016 WL 6246490, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2016) (“Because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the piracy was done for functions of industrial or personal gain, improved damages are not recommended.”); J & J sports Productions, Inc. v. Bolano, situation No. 5:14-cv-3939-BLF, 2015 WL 4512322, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (“In sum, it is Plaintiff’s concern to establish willfulness as well as Plaintiff has provided no evidence nor conducted any type of analysis of the particular facts in this situation on this point adequate to warrant an award of improved damages. As such, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate entitlement to improved damages as well as the Court declines to award such damages here.”); J & Camiseta Sporting CP J sports Productions, Inc. v. Lorenzana, situation No. 13-cv-5554 BLF (JCS), 2014 WL 3044566, at *4 (N.D. Cal. may 13, 2014) (“There is likewise insufficient evidence that accused displayed the Program for a `commercial advantage’ or for `financial gain,’ which is needed for an award of improved damages.”).

Share this:
Twitter
Facebook

Like this:
Like Loading…

Related

$4,750 in damages awarded complying with UFC 173 PiracyDecember 7, 2015In “piracy”
$60,000 demand Rejected fornull