Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 18
`
`STEVEN E. KLEIN, OSB #051165
`stevenklein@dwt.com
`KALEY L. FENDALL, OSB #093509
`kaleyfendall@dwt.com
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`Telephone: (503) 241-2300
`Facsimile: (503) 778-5299
`
`
`Attorneys for Black Entertainment Television LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`AT PORTLAND
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-01406-AC
`
`DEFENDANT BLACK
`ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION
`LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`v.
`
`DEFENDANTS.
`
`TYRONE BLOCKER,
`
`
`
`
`
`BET, MYSPACE, and AMAZON.COM,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 18
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Copyright Infringement. .................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Adequately Plead Copyright Registration. ............. 4
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Adequately Plead Ownership of Copyright. ........... 5
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Allege Any Act of Copyright Infringement. .......... 7
`
`Plaintiff’s Copyright Claims Are Time-Barred. ......................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Trademark Infringement. ................................. 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Ownership of a Registered or Unregistered
`Trademark. .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Allege Any Act of Trademark Infringement. ......... 9
`
`Plaintiff’s Trademark Claims Are Time-Barred. ...................................... 10
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Trademark Dilution. ...................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`Page i – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 3 of 18
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Aalmuhammed v. Lee,
`202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton,
`189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Aviva USA Corp. v. Vazirani,
`632 Fed. Appx. 885 (9th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................9
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Choyce v. SF Bay Area Independent Media Center,
`2013 WL 6234628 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013) .............................................................................5
`
`Commty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid,
`490 U.S. 730 (1989) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp,
`606 F.3d 612 (9th Cir. 2010) .....................................................................................................5
`
`Estrada v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.,
`2009 WL 10671571 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2009)..........................................................................6
`
`Garcia v. Google, Inc.,
`786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) .....................................................................................6
`
`Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.,
`518 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc.,
`304 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Johannsen v. Brown,
`797 F. Supp. 835 (D. Or. 1992) ...............................................................................................10
`
`L.A. Gem & Jewelry Design, Inc. v. Ecommerce Innov., LLC,
`2017 WL 1535084 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2017) ..........................................................................3
`Page ii – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 4 of 18
`
`Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
`250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc.,
`847 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Peruta v. County of San Diego,
`678 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ......................................................................................3
`
`Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick,
`559 U.S. 154 (2010) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Rice v. Fox Broad. Co.,
`330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................5
`
`Richlin v. Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Pictures, Inc.,
`531 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd.,
`19 F.3d 479 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Ruggers, Inc. v. U.S.,
`736 F. Supp. 2d 336 (D. Mass. 2010) ......................................................................................10
`
`Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Intern., Ltd.,
`96 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Stephen W. Boney, Inc. v. Boney Services, Inc.,
`127 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1997) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Vasquez v. L. A. Cnty.,
`487 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................4
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1114 ..........................................................................................................................8, 9
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) .....................................................................................................................8, 9
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1) ...................................................................................................................11
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A) .............................................................................................................11
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................................6
`
`Page iii – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 5 of 18
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................................5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ................................................................................................................................7
`
`17 U.S.C. § 201(a) ...........................................................................................................................5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 411(a) ...........................................................................................................................4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 507(b) ...........................................................................................................................8
`
`State Statutes
`
`Or. Rev. Stat. 12.110(1) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)..........................................................................................................1, 4, 11
`
`
`
`
`Page iv – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`LOCAL RULE 7-1 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
`Counsel for Black Entertainment Television LLC made a good faith effort through an
`
`October 30, 2017 phone conference with Plaintiff resolve the dispute, but was unable to do so.
`
`MOTION
`Defendant Black Entertainment Television LLC (“BET”)1 respectfully moves for an
`order dismissing Plaintiff Tyrone Blocker’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In support of this motion,
`
`BET submits the following memorandum of law.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`This is the third lawsuit that Plaintiff has filed in this District concerning his claims to
`
`own a copyright in the music compact disc (CD) titled NESTSIDE STORY and the trademark
`
`NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT. Plaintiff claims that all Defendants committed copyright
`
`infringement, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution, but he alleges no facts to support
`
`his claims and provides no explanation of BET’s (or any other Defendant’s) allegedly wrongful
`
`conduct. In the two prior actions, captioned Blocker v. Universal Music Publishing Group, Case
`
`No. 3:14-CV-1650 (D. Or.), and Blocker v. eBay et al., Case No, 3:16-cv-01709-AC (D. Or.), the
`Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 2 The Court
`should do the same here for at least five independent reasons:
`
`First, the Complaint contains no non-conclusory allegation that Plaintiff owns
`
`registrations for the copyrights asserted in the NESTSIDE STORY music CD and artwork or the
`
`1 The Complaint misidentifies defendant as “BET”, a New York corporation. Compl. ¶ 2.
`Defendant is in fact a Washington D.C. limited liability company whose corporate name is Black
`Entertainment Television LLC.
`2 The history of the two prior actions, including the Court’s decisions, are summarized in the
`pending motions to dismiss separately filed by Defendants Myspace, LLC (ECF Nos. 16-18) and
`Amazon.com (ECF No. 24).
`
`Page 1 – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 7 of 18
`
`NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT trademark.
`
`Second, by alleging that Plaintiff merely “assisted in the creation” of the NESTSIDE
`
`STORY music CD and artwork and the NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT trademark, the
`
`Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the type of authorship or control required to confer standing
`
`on Plaintiff to sue for copyright infringement, trademark infringement or dilution.
`
`Third, by alleging that Plaintiff’s claimed copyrighted works and trademark were merely
`
`“listed on” BET’s website, the Complaint fails to allege any volitional acts by BET that would
`
`qualify as copyright infringement, trademark infringement or dilution by BET.
`
`Fourth, because the Complaint alleges that the alleged acts of infringement and dilution
`
`occurred “[a]s far back as 2009,” Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement, trademark
`
`infringement and dilution are time-barred.
`
`Fifth, Plaintiff’s trademark dilution claim fails because the Complaint contains no non-
`
`conclusory allegation that the asserted NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT mark is famous.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`II.
`Plaintiff alleges that in 2007, he “assisted in the creation of and production of a music
`
`compact disc (CD) known as ‘NESTSIDE STORY’” and that this “assistance” took the form of
`
`Plaintiff “loan[ing] his own voice, lyrics, beats and ideals [sic] to the recordings” and assisting
`
`“in producing several artist [sic].” Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff also alleges that he “assisted in the
`
`creation of the design of the ‘CD’ covers [sic] artwork” and “assisted in the creation of the
`
`NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT trademark and logo.” Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. Plaintiff further asserts
`
`that from 2007 to 2017, he offered music and services under the NESTCOAST
`
`ENTERTAINMENT logo and trademark. Id. ¶ 8.
`
`While the Complaint includes conclusory allegations that Plaintiff owns a federal
`
`trademark registration for the mark NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT, id. ¶ 5, and a
`
`“registered copyright interest” with the U.S. Copyright Office for the songs, recordings, and
`Page 2 – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 8 of 18
`
`cover artwork and design for the NESTSIDE STORY music CD, id. ¶¶ 12, 13, the Complaint
`
`fails to reference any registration numbers or attach any registration certificates to support these
`
`naked assertions. A search of the U.S. Copyright Office’s public registration catalogue for
`
`registrations in Plaintiff’s name fails to disclose any copyright registration relating to NESTSIDE
`
`STORY, see Declaration of Steven E. Klein (“Klein Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-3 & Exs. A, B, while a search
`
`of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Trademark Electronic Search System
`
`revealed no trademark registrations in Plaintiff’s name, only a recently filed application to
`register NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT as a mark, Klein Decl. ¶ 4-5 & Exs. C, D.3
`Regarding the allegations of trademark and copyright infringement, Plaintiff asserts only
`
`that “[a]s far back as 2009, the NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT logo, trademark, and
`
`copyright songs and materials was [sic] listed on defendants Bandmine.com, Myspace.com,
`
`BET, eBay Inc., and Amazon websites which establishes that defendants are selling products and
`services connected and related to the NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT logo and trademark,”4
`Compl. ¶ 9. Absent from the Complaint is any allegation of who “listed” the alleged logo,
`
`trademark, songs and materials on Defendants’ websites; where on the websites these “listings”
`
`were placed and what form they took; or how the “listings” constituted trademark or copyright
`
`infringement by any Defendant, let alone BET. Instead, Plaintiff vaguely alleges that all
`
`Defendants “provided a forum for commerce and facilitated the sale of the infringing trademark
`
`and copyrighted songs and materials without consent from or remuneration to plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 15.
`
`As for the allegation of trademark dilution, Plaintiff alleges only that after the
`
`3 The Court may take judicial notice of the records of the USPTO and Copyright Office online
`registration systems on a motion to dismiss as they are public records of government
`organizations. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001); L.A. Gem &
`Jewelry Design, Inc. v. Ecommerce Innov., LLC, 2017 WL 1535084, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27,
`2017) (USPTO electronic records and Copyright Office database search results may be judicially
`noticed); Peruta v. County of San Diego, 678 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1054 n. 8 (S.D. Cal. 2010).
`4 Although Paragraph 9 of the Complaint labels Bandmine.com and eBay Inc. as “defendants”,
`neither has been joined as party in this action.
`
`Page 3 – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 9 of 18
`
`NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT mark purportedly “became famous,” all Defendants
`
`somehow “connected and related the same mark in commerse [sic] with the sale and advertising
`
`of goods and services without the plaintiff’s consent.” Id. ¶ 16. Again, Plaintiff fails to identify
`
`how or where BET—or any other Defendant—purportedly “connected and related” the
`
`NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT mark to the sale or advertising of any goods or services, let
`
`alone how such conduct qualifies as actionable dilution.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to
`
`state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
`
`(2007). Although the Court must accept as true the Complaint’s well-pled facts, conclusory
`
`allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an otherwise proper motion.
`
`Vasquez v. L. A. Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to
`
`provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions,
`
`and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations
`
`must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545
`
`(citations and footnote omitted). The Court is not required “to accept as true allegations that are
`
`merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v.
`
`Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, Plaintiff must plead “more than
`
`an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly). Indeed, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to allow a court
`
`to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Copyright Infringement.
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Adequately Plead Copyright Registration.
`1.
`Copyright registration is a precondition of filing a copyright infringement action. See
`
`Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 166–67 (2010); 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). In the Ninth
`Page 4 – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 10 of 18
`
`Circuit, a plaintiff who has not yet been issued a registration can still satisfy the registration
`
`requirement by pleading sufficient facts to demonstrate that prior to commencement of the action
`
`the Copyright Office received a complete application by the plaintiff for registration of the work.
`
`See Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, 606 F.3d 612, 621 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks any non-conclusory allegation that the NESTSIDE
`
`STORY music CD songs or artwork have been registered with the Copyright Office, and no
`
`registrations for those works in Plaintiff’s name are reflected in the Copyright Office’s electronic
`records. See Klein Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 & Exs. A, B.5 In the absence of a registration, or any allegation
`that a complete application to register the works was timely filed and received by the Copyright
`
`Office prior to commencement of this action, Plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement should
`
`be dismissed. See Choyce v. SF Bay Area Independent Media Center, 2013 WL 6234628, at *3
`
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013).
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Adequately Plead Ownership of Copyright.
`2.
`Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim also fails because he has not alleged non-
`
`conclusory facts to show copyright ownership of the allegedly infringed works. See Rice v. Fox
`
`Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`Under the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright ownership “vests initially in the author or
`
`authors of the work.” 17 U.S.C. § 201(a). “As a general rule, the author is the party who
`
`actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible
`
`expression entitled to copyright protection.” Commty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490
`
`U.S. 730, 737 (1989); see also 17 U.S.C. § 102. While a valid copyright registration issued
`
`
`5 A search of the Copyright Office’s online copyright catalog for 1978 to the present discloses
`only a single record for a two-dimensional artwork titled ORTHOSLEEVE registered in the
`name of “Tyrone Blocker.” Klein Decl. Ex. A. This registration appears to have no relevance to
`this action, as it has a different title, and its creation date (2006) and publication date (2012) are
`inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations relating to his NESTSIDE STORY works. Compl. ¶¶ 6,
`11.
`
`Page 5 – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 11 of 18
`
`within five years of publication of the registered work constitutes prima facie evidence of
`
`authorship, where—as here—there is no certificate reciting the plaintiff’s authorship, the
`
`complaint must recite affirmative, non-conclusory facts sufficient to establish ownership and
`
`standing to sue. See Estrada v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 2009 WL 10671571, at *3 (C.D.
`
`Cal. Feb. 11, 2009).
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any allegation that Plaintiff is the sole author or
`
`owner of any of the allegedly infringed works. Rather, the Complaint alleges only that Plaintiff
`
`“assisted in the creation and production” of the NESTSIDE STORY music CD by “assist[ing] in
`
`producing several artist[s]” and “loan[ing] his own voice, lyrics, beats and ideals to the
`
`recordings,” while also “assist[ing] the creation of the design of the “CD’ covers artwork”.
`
`Compl. ¶ 6. At best, these allegations suggest only that Plaintiff may have made some type of
`
`contribution to the claimed works. But they do not show that the claimed works were fixed in a
`
`tangible medium of expression by Plaintiff or under his authority, such that he would be
`
`considered the sole author of any work. See, e.g., Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 743-44
`
`(9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (finding actress that contributed performance to motion picture could
`
`not claim that performance constituted standalone work subject to copyright absent showing that
`
`performance was fixed in film or digital form by or under her authority).
`
`Nor does the Complaint support a claim that Plaintiff’s alleged role in “assist[ing] in the
`
`creation of” the NESTSIDE STORY songs and cover artwork allows him to claim joint
`
`authorship of the alleged works. Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines “joint work” as “a
`
`work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into
`
`inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. To be a co-author of a
`
`joint work, each author must make “an independently copyrightable contribution” to the
`
`whole. Richlin v. Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Pictures, Inc., 531 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir. 2008). The
`
`Ninth Circuit has established three factors as criteria for joint authorship: (1) who exercised
`
`control over the creation of the work; (2) whether the putative coauthors made “objective
`Page 6 – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 12 of 18
`
`manifestations of a shared intent to be coauthors” such as by marketing the work under both joint
`
`authors’ names; and (3) whether the “audience appeal of the work turns on” the putative
`
`coauthor’s contribution and “the share of each [contribution] in [the work’s] success cannot be
`
`appraised.” Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 2000).
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege facts to show that Plaintiff exercised any control
`
`over the creation of the NESTSIDE STORY music CD songs or artwork or that the works were
`
`marketed under Plaintiff’s name or any other facts to support a claim of joint authorship.
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Allege Any Act of Copyright Infringement.
`3.
`A prima facie case of direct copyright infringement requires a plaintiff to “demonstrate
`
`that the alleged infringers violated at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 666 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting
`
`A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001)). In addition, a
`
`plaintiff must show “volitional conduct” by the defendant; that is, conduct by the defendant that
`
`can reasonably be described as the “direct cause” of the infringement. Id.
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege any facts that show either the violation of an
`
`exclusive right or volitional conduct by BET. Rather, Plaintiff alleges only that “[a]s far back as
`
`2009, the . . . copyright [sic] songs and materials was listed on defendants Bandmine.com,
`
`myspace.com, BET, eBay Inc., and Amazon websites.” Compl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff fails to allege any
`
`additional facts that might explain how “list[ing]” songs and materials on a website violates an
`
`exclusive right granted to copyright holders, let alone how BET—or any other named
`
`Defendant—directly caused the “list[ing]” of the songs and materials.
`
`Thus, Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims fail and should be dismissed.
`
`Plaintiff’s Copyright Claims Are Time-Barred.
`4.
`Copyright infringement claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitation. 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 507(b). Here, the Complaint asserts that the alleged acts of infringement occurred “as far back
`
`as 2009,” more than three years prior to the commencement of this action on September 8, 2017.
`Page 7 – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 13 of 18
`
`As the Complaint contains no allegation that Plaintiff was unaware of the infringing conduct in
`
`2009 or of any new, actionable conduct occurring within three years prior to September 8, 2017,
`
`Plaintiff’s copyright claim should be dismissed as time-barred. See Roley v. New World
`
`Pictures, Ltd., 19 F.3d 479, 481-82 (9th Cir. 1994).
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Trademark Infringement.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Ownership of a Registered or Unregistered
`Trademark.
`Although the Complaint contains a conclusory allegation that Plaintiff owns a registered
`
`trademark for NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT, Compl. ¶ 5, this allegation is directly
`
`contradicted by records of the USPTO, which show only a pending application recently filed by
`
`Plaintiff. Klein Decl. ¶¶ 4-5 & Exs. C, D. Absent a registration, Plaintiff cannot assert a claim
`
`for infringement of a registered trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
`
`Nor does Plaintiff allege sufficient facts to support a claim of ownership of common law
`
`rights in the NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT mark such that he could maintain a claim for
`
`infringement of an unregistered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). “To acquire ownership of a
`
`trademark it is not enough to have invented the mark first or even to have registered it first; the
`
`party claiming ownership must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or
`
`services.” Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Intern., Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1996). Factors
`
`relevant to this priority determination include: (1) which party first developed and affixed the
`
`trademark onto the products in question; (2) which party’s name first appeared in connection
`
`with the products; (3) which party has maintained the quality and uniformity of the products;
`
`(4) with which party does the public identify the products; and (5) which party has the goodwill
`
`associated with the products. Stephen W. Boney, Inc. v. Boney Services, Inc., 127 F.3d 821, 829
`
`(9th Cir. 1997).
`
`Here, the only product identified in the Complaint with any specificity is the NESTSIDE
`
`STORY music CD. Compl. ¶¶ 6-8. Plaintiff fails to allege that he developed and affixed the
`
`Page 8 – DEF. BET’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
`Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
`(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01406-AC Document 33 Filed 11/01/17 Page 14 of 18
`
`NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT mark onto the NESTSIDE STORY CDs; controlled the
`
`quality and uniformity of the CDs; or possesses the goodwill associated with the CDs. Nor does
`
`Plaintiff allege that his name first appeared in connection with the CDs, or that that public
`
`identifies the CDs with him. Rather, Plaintiff merely alleges that he “assisted in” the creation of
`
`the NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT trademark and the NESTSIDE STORY CD. Compl.
`
`¶¶ 5-6, which is insufficient to show that he owns the NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT mark
`
`or has standing to sue for its infringement.
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Allege Any Act of Trademark Infringement.
`2.
`To state a claim for trademark infringement, Plaintiff must allege facts showing that BET
`
`“used” Plaintiff’s trademark in connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services in a
`
`way that is likely to cause confusion as to source, sponsorship or affiliation. See Aviva USA
`
`Corp. v. Vazirani, 632 Fed. Appx. 885, 887 (9th Cir. 2015) (“To recover under trademark law,
`
`the allegedly unlawful use of a trademark must be ‘in connection with a commercial transaction
`
`in which the trademark is being used to confuse potential consumers.’”) (quoting Bosley Medical
`
`Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672, 676 (9th Cir. 2005)); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1)(a),
`
`1125(a)(1)(A).
`
`The allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint are insufficient to demonstrate that
`
`BET has, in fact, “used” the NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT mark in connection with goods
`
`or services at all, much less in a manner that is likely to confuse consumers. Plaintiff’s claims
`
`rest entirely on the vague and conclusory allegation that the NESTCOAST logo and trademark
`
`“was listed on defendants bandmine.com, Myspace.com, BET, eBay Inc., and Amazon websites
`
`which establishes that defendants are selling products and services connected and related to the
`
`NESTCOAST ENTERTAINMENT logo and trademark.” Compl. ¶ 9. However, these
`
`conclusory statements do not suffice to state a cause of action. At a minimum, Plaintiff must set
`
`forth facts “as to who did what to whom, when, where, and why....” Ruggers, Inc. v. U.S., 736 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 336, 339–40 (D. Mass. 2010) (finding “vague and conclus