12/8/2023 0 Comments Wo hop city 15 mott112 ¶ 44.) The Shepards delivered the shirts to Wo Hop in May 1993. 112 ¶¶ 47–49.) The Shepards researched the history and significance of dragon iconography and came up with a design that met with Frankie’s approval. 112 ¶ 4.) In 1993, the Shepards made a deal with the manager of the prior iteration of Wo Hop (a man named Frankie) for around 1,000 custom-designed T-shirts bearing a dragon design. 112 ¶ 1.) They operate a design business called Alla Prima. 115 ¶ 6.) 1 Shirley and Andrea Shepard are a mother-daughter team of artists. bought the restaurant in 2008 and operates it today. 112 ¶ 47, 102–03.) Ownership of the restaurant has changed over the years. Background Since 1938, there has been a restaurant called Wo Hop at 17 Mott Street in Manhattan’s Chinatown. can be held liable for Wo Hop 17’s infringement. The closer questions are (1) how much the Shepards should receive in damages and (2) whether the third and final Defendant - Wo Hop 1938, Inc. And the Shepards lack evidence of scienter as to their claim that the Defendants distributed the shirts knowing that copyright markings had been removed, so the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on that claim. to the infringement, so Wo Hop City is entitled to summary judgment in its favor. But the Shepards lack evidence linking a second entity - Defendant Wo Hop City, Inc. The Shepards are therefore entitled to summary judgment on their infringement claim against Wo Hop 17. And third, Wo Hop 17 did not have the Shepards’ permission to sell the shirts. sold T-shirts with the copyrighted design at its Chinatown restaurant. Uncontroverted evidence shows as follows: First, Plaintiffs Shirley and Andrea Shepard created the design in 1993. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: This is a copyright case involving T-shirts with a distinctive dragon design. 116 Case 1:18-cv-09634-JPO-RWL Document 116 Filed 09/20/21 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SHIRLEY SHEPARD and ANDREA SHEPARD, Plaintiffs, -v- 18-CV-9634 (JPO) OPINION AND ORDER WO HOP CITY, INC., WO HOP 17, INC., and WO HOP 1938, INC., Defendants. Paul Oetken on ) (js) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. The parties are directed to confer and to submit a joint letter within 21 days after the date of this Opinion and Order addressing proposals for the remaining phase of this case, including proposed dates in 2022 for a jury trial (or a representation that all parties consent to a bench trial) es timated length of time for trial, and any proposals for settlement discussions, including whether the parties agree to be referred to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for a settlement conference. Summary judgment is granted for all Defendants on count three. The question whether Wo Hop 1938 took part in Wo Hop 17s infringement will be decided at trial. Both motions for summary judgment as to Wo Hop 1938 are denied. Summary judgment is granted for Wo Hop City on all claims. The amount of damages shall be determined at trial. Summary judgment is granted for the Shepards as to liability against Wo Hop 17 on count one (copyright infringement). The Defendants' second affirmative defense is dismissed. For the r easons discussed above: Summary judgment is granted for the Shepards as to timeliness. filed by Shirley Shepard, Andrea Shepard. filed by Wo Hop 17, Inc., Wo Hop 1938, Inc., Wo Hop City, Inc., 92 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: re: 101 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |