Wouldn't "Hey you can't market this movie" include merch or anything else such as signs, blog posts, podcasts, con panels, speaking engagements, etc?
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't "Hey you can't market this movie" include merch or anything else such as signs, blog posts, podcasts, con panels, speaking engagements, etc?
I suggest Samuel T. Cogley, attorney at law
Can you elucidate on this New Voyages implication a bit?
No. See my post back a page or two. Both are federal claims and would be brought in a federal court, and cuorts encourage (and in some circumstances require) all dispute between parties arising out of the same general factual scenario to be brought in one case.
To answer @Admiral Cain - whether the injunction/damages would extend to merchandising that doesn't directly promote the movie (i.e., even if there is no movie, could Axanar still avoid liability for the coffee or models) - it all depends on how the complaint is written, the case proceeds and the scope of the judge's final ruling. But trademark would be the far easier, more direct and more definitive route, because it's not subject to all of the defenses available in copyright (not just fair use but other defenses such as "we only copied a small part of your work" or "the majority of profits of the coffee aren't attributable to the infringing picture on the package because many people would've bought the coffee even if it didn't have a picture of a Klingon on it - people just love coffee; ask Starbucks.") Yes, I know these defenses seem weak and first glance, but copyright cases have been lost or minimized on similar grounds before, and, by basing everything on copyright, C/P will have to deal with these defenses if raised.
M
As Iurok said, the last infringement was from the short (I believe) that involved Alec as Garth and the New Voyages cast. While the infringement is specifically against him and the costume he used, I just worry that Alec will use this opportunity to try and throw NV under the bus because of a mistake CBS / Paramount made in saying that it was from the Axanar motion picture.
I've read the complaint now. I think the answer to your question would be "no" based just on this complaint. The infringing works are still defined to mean Prelude, the script for Axanar and Axanar itself. The prayer for relief is limited to stopping further distribution, display etc. of those works only. No mention whatsoever of merchandising, etc. that I see.
All that being said:
1.
Dammit:
1. If C/P learns more in discovery, they can request to amend their complaint to add claims, or just prove those claims at trial.
2. Though Lord Mkstewartesq (me) does not approve of the strategy currently taken by C/P, he is nonetheless impressed with the detail into which they do go on their existing claims.
3. Back to whining - I really wish they'd focused on the merchandising/profiteering. When I look at the 30-odd pages of listed infringing, there's not a thing there that Axanar can't point to and say "every other fan film - including ST-NV - does, and obviously C/P is aware of ST-NV because they showed it in their complaint. Why pick us on us?" A judge may pick up on that and ask the same question. Now, this doesn't change the fact that C/P can go - or not go - after whomever it chooses under copyright - but judges are also human and it starts looking like "big corporate bully singling out one small fry while letting others run wild", which plays right into Axanar's talking points.
4.
1. If C/P learns more in discovery, they can request to amend their complaint to add claims, or just prove those claims at trial.
2. Though Lord Mkstewartesq (me) does not approve of the strategy currently taken by C/P, he is nonetheless impressed with the detail into which they do go on their existing claims.
3. Back to whining - I really wish they'd focused on the merchandising/profiteering. When I look at the 30-odd pages of listed infringing, there's not a thing there that Axanar can't point to and say "every other fan film - including ST-NV - does, and obviously C/P is aware of ST-NV because they showed it in their complaint. Why pick us on us?" A judge may pick up on that and ask the same question. Now, this doesn't change the fact that C/P can go - or not go - after whomever it chooses under copyright - but judges are also human and it starts looking like "big corporate bully singling out one small fry while letting others run wild", which plays right into Axanar's talking points.
4.
4. I wonder if C/P is worried that if they bring a trademark claim, Axanar will fire back with a claim that C/P has been lax in protecting those trademarks - including by letting ST-NV use "Star Trek" in its title- and thereby put the trademarks in jeopardy? Maybe these C/P attorneys are privy to concerns I am not - and losing the rights to the ST trademark would be catastrophic (unlikely, but catastrophic.)
What the hell is wrong with my send key today? Sorry if I seem to be spamming.
M
What the hell is wrong with my send key today? Sorry if I seem to be spamming.
M
Your "send" key likes Axanar
Well, fine, because I just incorporated my "send" key as a nonprofit corporation to shield its personal assets from C/P. I have also advised my "send" key to stop being such an asshole on its Facebook group page. So it's all good.
M
Hang in there, your trial time is soon up and then you'll get an edit button.
I think that's very cogent speculation. CBS/P does have something to lose in this. Prudence would dictate "taking down the target" with as little ammo as possible. A surgical strike rather than nuclear approach. I'd think the last thing they'd want is to be put on the defensive on any point in the lawsuit. In the end, is trying to stop a "fan film" (or whatever it's being called today) worth putting your trademarks at even the tiniest risk?
I'm not aware of anything that would keep them from amending the complaint to add whatever they want. There comes a point in the proceeding where an amendment would need court approval - but I don't believe we are anywhere near that point.
Actually, I just checked the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 15. It says a party may amend its pleading without any court approval, "if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, [within] 21 days after service of a responsive pleading," The complaint is "one to which a responsive pleading is required" (an answer or other responsive motion is required); the responsive pleading (if you count the motion to strike as one) was February 22 or so, so C/P should be still well within the 21-day period after that to amend its complaint as it sees fit.
M
I defer to your judgement, but isn't it possible that CBS/Paramount are giving Alec every possible chance to give up on his own and end this?
Neil
Makes sense. As far as CBS being afraid of looking like a bully, I would say that's going to happen in some people's minds, regardless. However, it does look like CBS will be able to say to more reasonable people that they still pulled their punch a bit by not going after the Trademark violations. Never mind that they might have decided that it was just going into (expensive) overkill to pursue that issue.
- Status