Defendant allegedly ran photos of plaintiff models, to promote defendant’s resorts. Discussion of what tort this might be (false advertisement, unjust enrichment), and what it might not be (negligence per se).

Also, complaint was a few hundred pages too long.

[embeddoc url=”https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/833/2016/05/caliente-motion-to-dismiss-1.pdf”]

Noting the similarity between the language of Section 285 of the Patent Act, the Fifth Circuit extends Octane Fitness to cover Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act as to what constittutes an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. Departing from the standard that ‘exceptional’ means a case that is brought in bad faith, Octane Fitness looks to the ordinary meaning of exceptional, namely uncommmon, rare, not ordinary, unusual, special and not run-pf-the-mill.

[embeddoc url=”https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/833/2016/05/5th-circuit-exceptional-case-baker-v-deshong-1.pdf”]

Justia summary: Plaintiff-Appellant BWP Media USA, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Coast News and National Photo Group, LLC (“BWP”) appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Clarity Digital Group, LLC n/k/a AXS Digital Media Group, LLC (“AXS”). BWP owned the rights to photographs of various celebrities. In February 2014, BWP filed a complaint alleging that AXS infringed its copyrights by posting 75 of its photographs without permission on AXS’s website, “Examiner.com.” Rather than hiring a centralized writing staff, the content generated on Examiner.com was created by independent contractors, called “Examiners,” all over the world. Because it was a group of Examiners that posted the infringing content on Examiner.com, AXS asserted it was protected under the DMCA’s safe harbor provision. .” AXS asserted it was protected from liability by the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and moved for summary judgment. The district court agreed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit also agreed and affirmed the district court.

43blog discussion here.

[embeddoc url=”https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/833/2016/04/pacific-coast-10th-circuit-decision-1.pdf”]