Claim
Docket number: 23-CCB-0014
Filed date: 01/18/2023 03:14 PM EST
Filed date: 01/18/2023 03:14 PM EST
United States Copyright Claims Board
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Claimant
V.
J. Street Holdings LLC, Yvette D. Prindle
Respondent
Claim
Claim details
A claim for infringement
No
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Feasterville, PA
Authorized representative information
Ryan R. Janis
Jekielek & Janis
ryan@jj-lawyers.com
215-337-4860
203 E. Pennsylvania Blvd.
Feasterville, PA 19053
Feasterville, PA 19053
J. Street Holdings LLC
Yvette D. Prindle
UFC 246: Conor McGregor v Donald Cerrone
Zuffa, LLC
Zuffa, LLC
Yes
PA0002232761
03/10/2020
Motion picture and audiovisual
Live Sports Pay-Per-View Program
Publicly perform the work
Publicly display the work
No
1/18/2020
-
1/18/2020
Mountain Mike's Pizza, 606 J Street, Marysville, CA 95901
Claimant Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Claimant") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments.
By written agreement, Claimant was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] the Ultimate Fighting Championship® 246: Conor McGregor vs. Donald “Cowboy” Cerrone mixed martial arts program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on January 18, 2020 (the "Program") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Program in their commercial business without authorization from Claimant.
Respondents J. Street Holdings LLC and Yvette D. Prindle (collectively the "Respondents") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as Mountain Mike’s Pizza located at 606 J Street, Marysville, CA 95901 (the “Establishment”) on the date of the Program.
Respondent Yvette D. Prindle is an individual who resides in the State of California and was a member, manager, officer and/or principal of the entity owning and operating the Establishment on the date of the Program. Respondent Yvette D. Prindle had a right and ability to supervise the activities of the Establishment on the date of the Program and had an obvious and direct financial interest in the activities of the Establishment on the date of the Program.
Prior to the broadcast of the Program, Respondents could have contracted with Claimant and purchased authorization to exhibit the Program in the Establishment for a fee. However, Respondents chose not to contract with Claimant or pay the fee to Claimant to obtain the proper license or authorization. At no time did Claimant give Respondents license, permission or authority to receive and exhibit the Program in the Establishment.
Instead, Respondents, including their agents, servants, and/or employees, took affirmative steps to circumvent the commercial licensing requirement and unlawfully obtained the Program and exhibited it in their Establishment.
Upon information and belief, Respondents willfully engaged in illegal acts to receive the Program for free or at nominal cost while Claimant’s legitimate customers paid several thousand dollars. Respondents knew, or should have known, their receipt and exhibition of the Program at their establishment was not authorized.
Upon information and belief, Respondents intentionally pirated the Program for the sole purpose of their own economic gain. Respondents exhibited the Program for the commercial purpose of attracting paying customers, patrons, members, and guests, thereby wrongfully benefiting financially by infringing Claimant’s rights in the Program.
Respondents did not have license, authorization, permission, or consent from Claimant to exhibit the Program in the Establishment.
As exclusive licensee of the Program, Claimant has standing and capacity to bring this action in its own name against Respondents for their violation of the Copyright Act.
Respondents’ unauthorized display and public performance of the Program through any means was in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501.
Respondents’ acts of infringement were not only willful, intentional, and purposeful, but also in complete disregard of and indifference to Claimant’s rights.
Accordingly, Claimant is entitled to judgment in its favor and against each Respondent, jointly and severally, for statutory damages, in the discretion of the Board, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.
No
Claimant seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $15,000.00 for the Respondents’ willful violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Claimant’s attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.
