Claim Response
Docket number: 22-CCB-0269
Filed date: 05/24/2023 06:32 PM EDT
Filed date: 05/24/2023 06:32 PM EDT
United States Copyright Claims Board
ARMATUS DEALER UPLIFT, LLC
Claimant
V.
Wooden Automotive Consultants LLC
Respondent
Claim Response
Response details
Wooden Automotive Consultants LLC
Petitioner disputes the facts and claims. When Petitioner brought this issue to the Respondent, the Respondent immediately contacted the third party which created the webpage and the content on the webpage (including this video) to have the video removed and any content at issue removed as well. Respondent, had hired a third party to create their webpage and as such had been reassured by said third party that the webpage was original in design and content. Since that time the webpage has been free of any content that is or was viewed as infringing by the Petitioner.
Respondent never created the content in question in this case and thus Petitioner is making allegations that are directed at and towards the third party which created the content. While it is not debated that the content was present on the Respondent's website, Respondent hired a third party to prepare the website and the content, without any knowledge of the Petitioner's webpage and content, and it was at the third party's actions to either create a video that was novel or they took the Petitioner's video and used portions of it.
The content of the video is predominantly terms of art in the industry, and common phrases used in many sales videos and the like. The visuals of the video are drastically different when shown side by side. The reproduction of the spoken words on each slide is a technique used in promotion videos in all industries. The Petitioner makes claims that the Respondent infringed by include “You are in the car business, you are busy”, “Contact us today”, “It’s a no brainer”. The large portions of highlighted text in Ex. 6 is similar but not identical, and is related to similar topics and services using terms which are common in the industry. The topics are different in that Petitioner is related to retail reimbursements for warranty parts, and the Petitioner is for retail rates for warrant repairs.
Petitioner has not suffered any monetary damages and only makes allegations to this effect. They have failed to show evidence of lost business or income. Respondent and Respondent's counsel worked quickly as soon as the issue was identified and had the material removed from the website. Therefore there no willfulness on the part of the Respondent given that he had outsourced the creation of the webpage to a third party and thus the Petitioner cannot establish willfulness on part of the Respondent and also fails to include the party which created the video. Failure to state a prima facie case.
No damage have been identified just potential damages. There is no evidence to show that Respondent's use of the videos caused anyone to use their services as the alleged damages are purely speculative and show no evidence of a loss of clients or income.
No claim of willfulness can be sustained. Failure to name a necessary party.
