Characters Disney

Case 1:16-cv-02340-GBD-GWG Document 60 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 30
REDACTED-PUBLICLY FILED VERSION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-x
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., MARVEL Civil Action No. 1:16 Civ. 02340
CHARACTERS, INC., LUCASFILM LTD. LLC (GBD)
and LUCASFILM ENTERTAINMENT
COMPANY LTD. LLC,
Plaintiffs,
- against -
NICK SARELLI a/k/a Avi Lieberman, and

CHARACTERS FOR HIRE, LLC,
Defendants.
-x
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Louis S. Ederer
Matthew T. Salzmann
Tal Machnes
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, New York 10019
(212) 836-1000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
October 13, 2017

REDACTEDPUBLICLY FILED VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1
UNDISPUTED FACTS 3
ARGUMENT 12
I. THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS DEMONSTRATE

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 13
A. Plaintiffs Own Valid Marks That Are Entitled to Protection 13
B. CFH's Unauthorized Use of Plaintiffs' Marks Creates A

Likelihood Of Confusion 14
II. THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS DEMONSTRATE

THAT CFH HAS DILUTED PLAINTIFFS' MARKS 16
A. CFH Has Engaged In Dilution By Blurring 17
B. CFH Has Engaged In Dilution By Tarnishment 18
III. THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS DEMONSTRATE

THAT CFH HAS INFRINGED PLAINTIFFS' COPYRIGHTS 19
A. Plaintiffs Own Valid Copyrights In Their Characters and Works 20
B. CFH Has Infringed Plaintiffs' Copyrights 21
IV. SARELLI IS INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE FOR CFH'S

INFRINGING CONDUCT 23
A. Sarelli is Personally Liable For CFH's Trademark Infringement 23
B. Sarelli is Vicariously Liable For CFH's Copyright Infringement 23
V. DEFENDANTS ARE WILLFUL INFRINGERS 24
CONCLUSION 25
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page(s):
Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc.,
944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) 18, 19
Agence France-Presse v. Morel, 934 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 24, 25
Am. Broad Co. Merch., Inc. v. Button World Mfg., Inc.,

151 U.S.P.Q. 361 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1966) 15
Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2001) 20
Briese Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH v. Langton,

No. 09 Civ. 9790 (LTS) (MHD), 2011 WL 280815 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011) 14
Brown v. It's Entm't, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) 15, 20
Brown v Party Poopers, Inc.,

No. 00 CIV. 4799 (JSM), 2001 WL 1380536 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2001) 20
Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ??
Cartier a Div. Of Richemont N Am., Inc. v. Aaron Faber, Inc.,

396 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 14 15
Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc.,

696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012) 14
Coach Leatherware Co. v. AnnTaylor, Inc.,

933 F.2d 162 (2d Cir. 1991) 15
DC Comics Inc. v. Unlimited Monkey Bus., Inc., 598 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ga. 1984) 22
Deere & Co. v. MTD Prod., Inc., 41 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1994) 17, 18, 19
Design Tex Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Vinyl Mfg. Corp.,

No. 04 CIV. 5002 (JSR), 2005 WL 2063819 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2005) 24
Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publ'ns Inc., 111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940) 20
Detective Comics, Inc. v. Fox Publ'ns Inc., 46 F. Supp. 872 (S.D.N.Y. 1942) 20, 21
EMI Christian Music Grp., Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 844 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2016) 22
Fitzgerald Pub. Co. v. Baylor Pub. Co., 807 F.2d 1110 (2d Cir. 1986) 11
Fleischer Studios v. Freundlich, Inc., 73 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1934) 20
ii
Fonar Corp. v. Domenick, 105 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1977) 21
Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004) 21
Greenwich Film Prods., S.A. v. DRG Records, Inc.,

833 F. Supp. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 21
GTFM, Inc. v. Solid Clothing, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 17, 18, 19
Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 207 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 17
Hill v. Whalen & Martell, Inc., 220 F. 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1914) 21, 22, 23
Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., Inc., 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996) 18, 19
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Ultimate One Distrib. Corp.,

176 F. Supp. 3d 137, 155 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) 23, 25
King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924) 20
Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 454 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2006) 13
Lyons P 'ship, L.P. v. D&L Amusement & Entm't, Inc.,

702 F. Supp. 2d 104 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) 15, 20
Lyons P 'ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 2001) 16
McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) 12
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, 545 U.S. 913 (2005) 24
MSF Holding, Ltd. v. Fiduciary Tr. Co. Intl,

435 F. Supp. 2d 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), aff'd, 235 Fed. App'x. 827 (2d Cir. 2007) 12
Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc.,

50 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 191 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 1999) 16
N.A.S. Import, Corp. v. Chenson Enters., Inc., 968 F. 2d 250 (2d Cir. 1992) 24, 25
New York Stock Exch. Inc., v. New York, New York Hotel, LLC,
293 F.3d 550 (2d Cir. 2002) 17
Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Pub. Grp., 11 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998),
aff'd sub nom., Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Pub. Grp., Inc.,
181 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1999) 21
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) 22
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) 14, 15
iii
Sports Authority, Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1996) 17
Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc., 159 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 1998) 14
Twin Peaks Prods., Inc. v. Publ'ns Int 'l, Ltd.. 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993) 24
U.S. Polo Ass 'n, Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.,

800 F. Supp. 2d 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff'd, 511 F. App'x. 81 (2d Cir. 2013) 16
Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2004) 12
Walt Disney Co. v. Powell, 897 F.2d 565 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ")1
Walt Disney Prods. v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978) 21
Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983) 20
Warner Bros., Inc. v. Gay Toys, Inc., 658 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1981) 16
Other Authorities:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) 12
15 U.S.C. 1114 13
15 U.S.C. 1125 13
15 U.S.C. 1127 14
17 U.S.C. 106(1) 19, 22
17 U.S.C. 106(4) 22
17 U.S.C. 106(5) 19, 20, 22
37 C.F.R. 202.1(a) 11
-N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 360-/ ,- , , ......... ...... ....16, 17
iv
Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc. ("Disney"), Marvel Characters, Inc. ("Marvel"), and
Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC and Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd, LLC (together "Lucasfilm")
respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion for partial summary
judgment on liability and willfulness.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiffs are the creators and owners of some of the most popular and recognizable
fictional characters in the world, including Darth Vader, Iron Man, and Elsa and Anna from the
motion picture Frozen. Defendants Nick Sarelli and Characters for Hire, LLC ("CFH") operate a
"live costumed entertainment" business that provides unlicensed and poor quality appearances of
and performances by Plaintiffs' iconic characters for themed events, such as children's parties.
CFH's knock-off business is built upon the infringement of Plaintiffs' highly valuable
intellectual property rights. CFH copies, displays, and mimics the trademark and copyright-
protected images, names, likenesses, and personas of Plaintiffs' characters, as well as Plaintiffs'
films, musical and other creative works, to advertise and provide unauthorized versions of these
characters to the fans of Plaintiffs' works. CFH receives significant revenue from its
unauthorized services, all of which free ride on Plaintiffs' goodwill and diminish the value of
Plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
CFH's unauthorized use of Plaintiffs' characters and film names violates Plaintiffs'
trademark rights. CFH infringes Plaintiffs' marks by (1) advertising and promoting its live
costumed entertainment business (for example, trumpeting the availability of "Frozen"-themed
party packages), and (2) providing its customers with live costumed actors who pass themselves
off as Plaintiffs' trademarked characters, and who mimic their personas, attributes, and famous
story lines. All of these unauthorized uses have caused, and are likely to continue to cause,
1
confusion as to the origin, source, and/or sponsorship of CFH's unlicensed services.
CFH's trafficking in low-quality knock-offs of Plaintiffs' characters, images, and names
also dilutes Plaintiffs' highly valuable marks under New York's anti-dilution statute. CFH blurs
and tarnishes Plaintiffs' marks by using them to identify CFH's shoddy services that are inimical
to Plaintiffs' reputation for high quality goods and services, and impeccable customer care.
Indeed, the Better Business Bureau has given CFH an "F" rating, and Yelp is replete with
customer complaints about CFH and its unsatisfactory services.
CFH's conduct also constitutes copyright infringement. Specifically, to promote its
business, CFH reproduces and publicly displays unauthorized images and performances of
Plaintiffs' copyrighted characters and musical works, including numerous promotional videos
and images on the interne. CFH also infringes Plaintiffs' copyrighted characters in live form, by
providing its customers with costumed actors who pretend to be Plaintiffs' iconic characters, and
who mimic the famous personas, attributes, and story lines of such characters.
Defendants' infringing conduct has been willful. Defendants have long known of
Plaintiffs' intellectual property rights. Yet, rather than taking steps to avoid further misuse of
Plaintiffs' properties, they purposefully attempted to mask their misconduct, which evinces their
consciousness of guilt. For example, Defendants referred to Plaintiffs' characters by
transparently silly and fake names ("Big Hairy Guy" for Chewbacca, "Young Luke" for Luke
Skywalker), but CFH's customers knew they would be provided with actors mimicking
Plaintiffs' characters. Defendants went so far as to secretly re-write their customers' online
reviews to hide that their own customers referred to Plaintiffs' characters by name when
describing CFH's services. Defendants also disingenuously profess that any similarity as
between Plaintiffs' iconic characters and CFH's copycat characters is coincidental. And,
2
Defendants continued their infringement after receiving Plaintiffs' pre-litigation written demands
that they stop, and after promising Plaintiffs they would stop.
Finally, Defendant Nick Sarelliwho uses a fake name to shield his identity while
operating CFHis the sole owner and managing director of CFH. He is the moving, active,
conscious force behind CFH's willfully infringing conduct, and has directly profited from CFH's
infringing conduct. As a result, Sarelli is individually liable for CFH's acts of trademark and
copyright infringement.
The undisputed facts demonstrate that this Court should grant partial summary judgment
to Plaintiffs on liability and the issue of willfulness.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
Parties
Disney, Marvel, and Lucasfilm are among the world's leading producers of entertainment
experiences, as well as related products and services. See Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1 Statement
of Material Facts, dated October 13, 2017 ("SOF") Til 1-3.
Defendant CFH markets itself as the "largest premium entertainment company
specializing in ... live costumed entertainment." SOF 11. Defendant Sarelli is the sole owner
and managing director of CFH. SOF 15. Sarelli has identified himself as the person most
knowledgeable about every aspect of CFH's business, including CFH's website and social media
accounts; CFH's decisions to offer various costumed services; the characters CFH offers;
customer complaints received by CFH; and CFH's use and/or reproduction of Plaintiffs'
trademarks and copyrighted characters. SOF 16. Sarelli conducts CFH's business under his
own name, as well as the fake name "Avi Lieberman." SOF 17.
3
Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property Rikids
Plaintiffs have, over decades, created and developed scores of the world's most iconic
fictional characters, films, soundtracks, and other works. These works are well-known, and have
long been associated exclusively with Plaintiffs. SOF In 1 - 1 0, 18-62.
Plaintiffs own the following trademark and copyright registrations that are relevant to this
motion for summary judgment. SOF 18-62.1
Trademark Reg. Trademark Reg.

Character Copyright Registration No.
No. (Word) No. (Image)
Disney
4,475,448 (Mickey
Mouse); 2,704,887 VA 58-937 (model sheet (Mickey Mouse)); VA
(Mickey Mouse); 124-730 (character guide depicting images and
Mickey Mouse;
1,857,626 (Mickey personas (Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse));
Minnie Mouse
Mouse); 4,475,447 VA 58-938 (model sheet (Minnie Mouse)),
(Minnie Mouse). renewed GP 80-191. SOF 111 42-45.
SOF 11 19-22.
4,816,352;
4,756,535; PA 1-871-077 (motion picture); VA 1-884-608
Frozen; Elsa and
4,646,044 (style guide depicting images and persona).
Anna
(stylized versions). SOF TT 46-47.
SOF 23-25.
Marvel
VA 1-639-102, VA 1-659-545 (style guides
2,940,211.
Avengers depicting images and personas).
SOF 27.
SOF 11149-50.
TX 4-935-634 (comic book); VA 1-951-043;
VA 1-800-941 (style guides depicting images
4,,
009 737. 879,980.
Captain America and persona); VA 1-639-102, VA 1-659-545
SOF 28. SOF 29.
(style guides depicting images and persona).
SOF II 49-53.
TX 4-892-334, TX 4-589-871 (comic books);
1,242,914. 891,591.
Hulk depicting images and persona); VA 1-639-102,
SOF 1 30. SOF 1 31.
and persona). SOF IT 49-50, 52-53, 55-56.
893,770. VA 1-951-043, VA 1-800-941 (style guides
Iron Man
SOF 32. depicting images and persona); VA 1-659-545,
1 Plaintiffs also own additional federally registered marks, as well as common law trademark rights in all
of their federally registered marks and other marks at issue in this case. However, with respect to their
trademark claims, Plaintiffs seek summary judgment with respect to only the federally registered marks
identified above.
4
Trademark Reg. Trademark Reg.

Character Copyright Registration No.
No. (Word) No. (Image)
and persona). SOF In 49-50, 53-54.
Lucasfilm
2,598,203; 3,503,765 PA 72-282, PA 172-810 (motion pictures); VA
Star Wars 2,573,978. (stylized version), 1-969-644, VA 1-875-024, VA 1-910-796 (style
SOFT1134-35. SOF 36. guides (2013-2015)). SOF 11 58-62.
3,646,332;
depicting images and persona); PA 72-282, PA
Stormtrooper 3,646,804 (mask).
172-810 (motion pictures). SOF II 58-59,
SOF VI 37-38.
61-62.
2,454,915. 3,646,330.
Darth Vader depicting images and persona); PA 72-282, PA
SOF1139. SOF 40.
172-810 (motion pictures). SOFT! 58-61.
VA 1-875-024 (style guide depicting images and
Darth Maul
persona). SOF 60.
PA 72-282, PA 172-810 (motion pictures); VA
Chewbacca 1-969-644, VA 1-875-024, VA 1-910-796 (style
guides (2013-2015)). SOF Illi 58-62.
Luke Skywalker;
Princess Leia; VA 1-910-796 (style guide depicting images and
Han Solo; Obi- personas); PA 72-282, PA 172-810 (motion
Wan Kenobi; pictures). SOF TT 58-59, 61.
Yoda
To protect the integrity, image, and reputation of Plaintiffs' iconic characters and their
source, Plaintiffs operate a strictly controlled licensing program, and carefully select only the
most qualified parties to use and exploit their distinctive characters, copyrights, and trademarks
on and in connection with appropriate products and services. SOF 4.
Defendants' Willful Trademark and Copyright Infringement
CFH provides customers with costumed actors who appear and perform at themed events,
such as children's parties and corporate gatherings. SOF 12, 63-210. CFH has repeatedly
copied and used the images, likenesses, personas, and names of Plaintiffs' characters to promote
and provide themed entertainment services featuring unauthorized versions of these iconic
characters. SOF In 13, 63-210. CFH earns significant revenue from these unauthorized
services, all of which trade off the substantial goodwill Plaintiffs have developed in these well-
5
known characters. SOF VI 14, 63-210. For example, in 2015, CFH charged for a
single ' -MI'-themed party package, and = for a single --themed party. SOF
Irg 117, 206, 230.
Trademark CFH misuses Plaintiffs' trademarks (SOF 19-40), without Plaintiffs'
authorization or consent, to advertise and facilitate the provision of its illicit services, and as the
crux of its entire business operation.
First, CFH uses the names and images of Plaintiffs' trademark-protected characters to
advertise and promote its live character business. See, e.g., SOF 67 (advertising "Frozen
Princesses Themed Party Packages" that would "[b]ring the excitement of winter to your next
Frozen themed event," featuring "Anna and Elsa delight[ing] your children as they sing their
favorite songs" with "professional Broadway quality"); see also SOF Ili 64-100.
Second, CFH refers to Plaintiffs' trademark-protected characters in its customer
agreements and in correspondence intended to promote the sale of its live costumed
entertainment services. See, e.g., SOF 180 (agreement for party featuring "
'); 230 (email
regarding party); see also SOF Tif 101-211.
Third, CFH provides its customers with live costumed characters who purposefully
pretend to be, by name and appearance, Plaintiffs' characters, and who mimic their famous
personas, attributes, and famous story lines. See generally SOF Part III.B.
Copyright Similarly, CFH reproduces and publicly displays unauthorized images of
Plaintiffs' copyrighted characters (SOF TR 41-61) to advertise, promote, and conduct its live
character business. In particular, to promotes its business, CFH posts advertisements on the
internetincluding on its www.charactersforhire.com website; its YouTube and Facebook
6
pages; and on Yelpthat reproduce, publicly display, and publicly perform knockoffs of
Plaintiffs' iconic fictional characters. SOF 1 64-100. Such knockoff costumed characters also
appear as the headliners at CFH's themed events. SOF 411 101-211.
As set forth below, CFH has misused Plaintiffs' trademarks and copyrights as follows:2
Advertising Advertising Knock Off Performance

Character/Film
(Name) (Image) (Image and Persona)
Disney
YouTube video title CFH Website video One wedding (11 101)
Mickey Mouse; (1165) (1164);
Minnie Mouse YouTube video (165);
Facebook image (1166)
CFH Website CFH Website videos One theatre opening
advertising "Frozen (11 68); (11 104);
Theme Parties" (1 65); YouTube videos (111169- Two corporate events
Elsa and Anna YouTube video titles 74); (11 115, 117);
(Frozen) (111169, 72-74); Facebook images (1 75) Twelve birthday parties
Facebook references (1111 102, 103, 105-13, 116)
(11 75);
Yelp testimonials (11 76)
Marvel
CFH Website CFH Website images Four birthday parties (II 119,
advertising "Avenging (11 78-79); 124-26)
Team" themed parties YouTube videos (1111 80-
The Avengers and characters (1177- 82)
79, 85);
YouTube Video titles
(1180, 82)
CFH Website CFH Website images One end of school year party
Two or more of advertising "Man of (1111 78-79); (1 118);
the Avengers Iron" "Big Green Guy" YouTube videos (111180- One corporate event
characters and "The Solider" 81); (1 129);
(Captain characters (1 78) Yelp, Instagram, and Thirteen birthday parties
America; Hulk;
Facebook images (11 86) (11 119, 124-26, 128, 131,
and/or Iron Man)
134-37, 140-41, 143)
CFH Website CFH Website images Five birthday parties (1111 121,
advertising "Captain (11 79, 84); 123, 132, 139, 142);
Captain America USA" events (1184) YouTube video (183) One play date (1 127);
only
Two corporate events
(111122, 123)
CFH Website Two birthday parties (11 120,
Hulk only advertising "Dr. Hulk 130);
Events" (1 85) Two corporate events (1 138)
2 All paragraph references in the following chart refer to paragraphs in Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts (SOF).
7
Advertising Advertising Knock Off Performance

Character/Film
(Name) (Image) (Image and Persona)
Lucasfilm
CFH Website Five themed birthday parties
advertising "Star MI 151-52, 154, 204, 206);
Battles" Events (Il 87); Two birthday parties with
Video title posted on themed services (fm 146, 163);
Star Wars CFH Website (If 89); One corporate event with
YouTube video titles themed meet and greet (11171)
(1 90, 93-94);
Yelp testimonials
OM 97-100)
Two or more of CFH Website CFH Website images Fifty one birthday parties
advertising specific (11187- 89); (111144, 146-47, 149-51, 155-
Star Wars
characters (Darth "Star Battles" Video posted on CFH 56, 158, 160-65, 168-77, 179-
Vader; Luke characters (1187); Website (II 89) 86, 189-204, 208-09);
Skywalker; YouTube video caption YouTube videos (11 90- One wedding Oil 157);
Chewbacca; (11 93); 91, 95); One corporate event (11207);
Stormtrooper; Yelp testimonials Yelp and Facebook One fundraiser (178)
Darth Maul; Obi- (TI 97-98) page images (96);
Wan Kenobi; Han Image in
Solo; Yoda; correspondence with
and/or Princess customers (II 211)
Leia)
Yelp and Facebook
Stormtrooper only Images (196)
YouTube video title and Three birthday partieson

166-
Darth Vader only caption (192) 67, 210)
One photo shoot (188)
Obi-Wan Kenobi Two birthday parties (IN 154,

only 159)
Two birthday parties (111145,

Chewbacca only 153)
Luke Skywalker Four birthday parties (11148,
only 152, 187, 205)
Defendants' Willfulness and Bad Faith
Defendants have long known of Plaintiffs' intellectual property rights. Yet, rather than
cease their infringing conduct, Defendants have taken bad faith (and ineffectual) steps to conceal
their misconduct, all of which evince their consciousness of guilt. See generally SOF Part IV.
Defendants also continued their infringing conduct after receiving Plaintiffs' pre-litigation cease
and desist letters, and after expressly promising to halt their infringements. SOF 1 212-16.
8
Sarelli even attempted to shield his identity and role in running CFH by using the fake
name "Avi Lieberman" when conducting CFH's business. SOF 17.
Similarly, CFH attempted to conceal its use of Plaintiffs' characters by using fake names
to refer to its knockoff characters. For example, prior to February 2014, CFH used the actual
names of Plaintiffs' trademark-protected characters when selling its unauthorized services. See,
e.g., SOF 11180 (agreement for birthday party featuring '
. By
February 2014, however, CFH had begun using slightly modified names for its copycat
costumed characters and film references. See, e.g., SOF 78; SOF 11181 (agreement for
iirthday party featuring '
'); SOF 185 (agreement for
birthday party featuring ' characters).
CFH's efforts to mask their infringing activities, however, were ineffectual at best, and
purposefully so. CFH's fake names fooled no one, as they obviously referred (and were intended
to refer) to Plaintiffs' iconic characters and films. Compare, e.g., SOF 151
'with, e.g., SOF IfIlf 87, 186 ("Star Battle" and "Young Luke"). And, in any
event, CFH at times reverted to using Plaintiffs' characters' real names. See, e.g., SOF 1 204
(agreement for l ibirthday party featuring
). CFH's customers also consistently
used the real names of Plaintiffs' characters and films and not CFH's slightly altered names,
demonstrating that they knew exactly which of Plaintiffs' characters CFH was knocking off.
See, e.g., SOF In 229, 235, 238, 239. And yet, Defendants tried to publicly conceal this fact, too,
secretly rewriting the reviews that CFH's customers had posted online to remove all references
9
to real names and titles of Plaintiffs' iconic characters and films, and to replace the references
with CFH's fake names. Specifically, Defendants have admitted to changing at least the
following names and titles in their customers' reviews: "Luke/Darth experience" to "Star
Battle," "Star Wars storyline" to "Star Battles story line," "Darth Vader" to "Dark Lord," "Star
Wars" to "Star Battle(s)," "Darth Maul" to "Mauler," "Princess Leia" to "the Princess.- and
"Chewbacca" to "Big Hairy Guy." See, e.g., SOF 11223-28.
CFI-I has also adopted supposed disclaimers that, far from preventing confusion, further
evince Defendants' knowledge of Plaintiffs' rights. See, e.g., SOF 221. For example,
Defendants included a supposed disclaimei
See, e.g., SOF
134 (event agreement for ' '). Similarly, Sarelli
told
SOF 222. Despite Defendants' awareness of the illicit
nature of their business and apparent reluctance to identify Plaintiffs' iconic characters by name,
Defendants continued to offer their infringing live costumed entertainment services featuring
knockoffs of Plaintiffs' well-known characters. See, e.g., SOF 1 209 (event agreement for
birthday party featuring " characters).
Later, and even as of the date of this filing, CFH began using an even more implausible
disclaimer, professing that any similarity between its characters and Plaintiffs' iconic characters
is merely a "coincidence." See, e.g., SOF 220-21. This new fine print states that CFH's
"costumed characters are generic/inspired and are not affiliated, licensed or associated with any
copyright or trademark" and "[a]ny resemblance to nationally known copyrighted characters is
10
strictly coincidental." SOF 220-21 (capitals omitted); see also SOF 204 (agreement for
' birthday party featuring "
').3 Defendants' reference to "nationally known copyrighted
characters" further demonstrate their knowledge of Plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
After Plaintiffs discovered CFH's misconduct in 2015, Plaintiffs' counsel sent Sarelli
(who was using the fake name "Avi Lieberman") two cease and desist letters, which put him and
CFH on notice that they were blatantly infringing Plaintiffs' trademarks and copyrights. SOF
212-13. In response to Plaintiffs' first cease and desist letter, Sarelli, pretending to be "Avi
Lieberman," advised Plaintiffs' counsel that Defendants "ha[d] removed all images from our
web site pertaining to your client. It was not our intention to disregard the intellectual property
rights of your client and we meant no harm in doing so." SOF 214. Despite these assurances,
CFH, at Sarelli's direction, continues to infringe Plaintiffs' intellectual property to this day. SOF
215-16.
CFH's Poor Reputation
CFH is known as an unprofessional company that provides shoddy services. The Better
Business Bureau gave CFH its lowest ratingan "F"based on consumer complaints filed with
the organization. SOF 231. CFH also has at least 17 "not currently recommended" reviews on
its Yelp page, which state that CFH is a "joke" made up of "not professional workers"; its actors
fail to show up for scheduled events; it refuses to refund money; and the individuals who appear
3
Defendants' so-called "disclaimers" do not shield them from liability. Among other reasons, copyright
infringement is a strict liability offense, and thus, "[e]ven an innocent infringer is liable for infringement."
Fitzgerald Pub. Co. v. Baylor Pub. Co., 807 F. 2d 1110, 1113 (2d Cir. 1986). Thus, CFH's effort to
portray its copying of Plaintiffs' characters as a "coincidence" does not absolve it of liability. It is
similarly meaningless that Sarelli refrained from using the exact names of Plaintiffs' characters in his
correspondence with customers, because it is not a character's name, but its image or persona that enjoys
copyright protection. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. 202.1(a) ("words and short phrases such as names" are not
subject to copyright).
11
at events are often rude, unprofessional, and unprepared to perform. See, e.g., SOF in 232-39.
CFH, through Sarelli operating under the fake name "Avi Lieberman," has responded to many of
these complaints in public forums, with harassing comments that ridicule its customers. See,
e.g., SOF 11234 (claiming customer drove CFH "insane"); 236 (calling woman a "wacko
psychopath"); 236 (claiming that customer was trying to con CFH and that other unnamed
vendors said she looked like a "basket case").
Simply stated, CFH's reputation is fundamentally at odds with Plaintiffs' stellar
reputation for excellent quality and customer service. As noted business publications have
reported for decades: "The fact is that Disney's customer service is the gold standard for every
businessbecause their management understands that if you don't treat your paying patrons as
you should, you're going in the wrong direction." SOF 116.
ARGUMENT
Summary judgment is properly awarded where the "movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. -
800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004). Although this Court is to view the facts in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "[t]he mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary
judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." MSF Holding, Ltd.
v. Fiduciary Tr. Co. Intl, 435 F. Supp. 2d 285, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), aff'd, 235 Fed. App'x. 827
(2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (emphasis is original). A fact is not material if it would not
affect the outcome of the suit under governing law, and an issue of fact is not genuine if the
evidence is not sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.
See McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 202 (2d Cir. 2007).
12
I. THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS DEMONSTRATE TRADEMARK

INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their claims for infringement of their federally-
registered marks, as identified in this motion, under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1114 (Count II).4 Section 32 prohibits "any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or
advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause
confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive." 15 U.S.C. 1114.
Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their Lanham Act claim because: (1)
Plaintiffs own valid marks that are entitled to protection; and (2) CFH's unauthorized use of
those marks is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the origin, source and/or sponsorship of
CFH's unlicensed services. See, e.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 454
F.3d 108, 115 (2d Cir. 2006).
A. Plaintiffs Own Valid Marks That Are Entitled to Protection
As set forth above, Plaintiffs own valid, federally-registered trademarks in numerous
characters' names and images, and in their franchise titles, the following of which are relevant to
this motion:
Disney: Mickey Mouse (image); Minnie Mouse (image); and Frozen (stylized word).
See SOF 18-25.
Marvel: Avengers (word); Captain America (word and image); Hulk (word and image);
and Iron Man (image). See SOF 26-32.
Lucasfilm: Star Wars (word and stylized word); Stormtrooper (images); and Darth
Vader (word and image). See SOF 33-40.
4Plaintiffs have asserted additional claims in this case for infringement of unregistered marks under 15
U.S.C. 1125 (Count III); common law unfair competition (Count IV); and common law trademark
infringement (Count V). Plaintiffs' motion does not seek summary judgment on these claims.
13
Plaintiffs' certificates of registration for these marks are "prima facie evidence that the
mark[s] [are] registered and valid (i.e., protect[a]ble)," that Plaintiffs "own[] the mark[s]," and
that Plaintiffs "ha[ve] the exclusive right to use the mark[s] in commerce." Christian Louboutin
S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206, 216 n.10 (2d Cir. 2012).5
B. CFH's Unauthorized Use of Plaintiffs' Marks Creates A Likelihood Of

Confusion
The Lanham Act seeks to "regulate commerce within the control of Congress by making
actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks in ... commerce." 15 U.S.C. 1127.
Specifically, the statute "protects the rights of the first user of a trademark, particularly where
that mark is a strong one." Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. VanDam, Inc., 159 F.3d 739, 742 (2d Cir.
1998). This is achieved "by barring a later user from employing a confusingly similar mark,
likely to deceive purchasers as to the origin of the later user's product, and one that would
exploit the reputation of the first user." Id. (citation omitted).
District courts in the Second Circuit use "the Polaroid factors" to assess whether a
likelihood of confusion exists between two marks.6 Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287
F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961). Where there is a "clear[] likelihood of confusion," the Court "need
not consider in great depth the individual ... factors." E.g., Cartier a Div. Of Richemont N Am.,
Inc. v. Aaron Faber, Inc., 396 F. Supp. 2d 356, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
5To rebut this presumption, a defendant must come forward with affirmative evidence that shows, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that a registered mark is ineligible for protection. See id. Because
Defendants have produced no evidence during discovery that bears upon, much less challenges, the
validity of Plaintiffs' marks, Defendants cannot belatedly proffer any such purported evidence now. See,
e.g., Briese Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH v. Langton, No. 09 Civ. 9790 (LTS) (MHD), 2011 WL 280815,
at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011).
6The Polaroid factors are: (1) the strength of a plaintiff's mark; (2) the degree of similarity between the
plaintiff's and defendant's marks; (3) the proximity of the products; (4) the likelihood that the plaintiff
could "bridge the gap" by entering the defendant's market; (5) any actual confusion; (6) bad faith on the
part of the defendant; (7) the quality of the defendant's product; and (8) the sophistication of the buyers.
Polaroid, 287 F.2d at 495.
14
Here, the likelihood of confusion between Plaintiffs' protected characters and names, and
CFH's unauthorized services, is plainly evident. Indeed, courts have consistently held that the
public is likely to be confused when a defendant supplies unauthorized live costumed
performances of well-known fictional characters to the consuming public. See, e.g., Lyons
P 'ship, L.P. v. D&L Amusement & Entm't, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 104, 113-16 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)
(granting preliminary injunction barring unauthorized use of nationally known Barney and Bob
the Builder characters, which had been recognized for "their excellence and been tremendously
successful"); Brown v. It's Entm't, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 854, 859 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (finding a
"clear likelihood of confusion as to the source of the product" in the case of defendant's use of
the "renown[ed]" Arthur character); cf. Am. Broad. Co. Merch., Inc. v. Button World Mfg., Inc.,
151 U.S.P.Q. 361 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1966) (enjoining sale of buttons bearing a picture of a green
hornet and the legend "Official Member Super Hero Hornet Society" because it created the
misimpression of sponsorship by the plaintiffs' "Green Hornet" shows). That is precisely what
CFH has done here.
Moreover, even though not required (e.g., Cartier, 396 F. Supp. 2d at 359), the
application of each of the Polaroid factors demonstrates a strong likelihood of confusion, as to
which there is no issue of fact:
Strength of Plaintiffs' Marks: Plaintiffs' fictional characters are some of the most
recognizable marks in the world of entertainment. See SOF 1-10.
Similarity of the Marks: CFH advertises and supplies costumed characters that are
either identical or virtually identical to Plaintiffs' characters in image, costume, name,
and/or total "look and feel" (see, e.g., Coach Leatherware Co. v. AnnTaylor, Inc., 933
F.2d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 1991) (comparing total look and feel in likelihood of confusion
analysis)). See generally SOF Part III (detailing infringing uses).
Proximity: Plaintiffs present their trademark-protected fictional characters to the
consuming public, including in live form at Plaintiffs' themed amusement parks. See,
e.g., SOF 10. CFH engages in the exact same businessproviding live costumed
character entertainment services. See SOF 11, 12, 101-210.
15
Bridging the Gap: Since CFH has injected itself into (one line of) Plaintiffs' business,
there is no gap to bridge. See SOF 10-12.
Actual Confusion: Online reviews that CFH surreptitiously edited show that its
costumers referred to its copycat characters by using Plaintiffs' names for such
characters, and not CFH's purposefully transparent alternatives. See SOF 223-30.
Bad Faith: CFH has attempted to elude liability by claiming, unbelievably, that any
similarity between CFH's characters and Plaintiffs' is coincidental (e.g., SOF 220-21);
adopting slightly altered character names that nevertheless remain recognizable as
Plaintiffs' world famous characters (e.g., SOF 137-43, 181-203); and secretly
removing Plaintiffs' characters' names from CFH's own customers' online reviews (SOF
223-28). Pretending to be "Avi Lieberman," Sarelli falsely represented to Plaintiffs
that CFH would cease its infringement after receiving Plaintiffs' first demand letter (SOF
II 214-16). Bad faith can also be inferred since CFH had knowledge of Plaintiffs' marks
and nevertheless deliberately copied them, and continues to do so today (id.). U.S. Polo
Ass'n, Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 800 F. Supp. 2d 515, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff'd,
511 F. App'x. 81 (2d Cir. 2013).
Inferior Quality of Defendants' Services: The Better Business Bureau rates CFH an
"F," and various customers have given CFH scathing online reviews. CFH's substandard
operations present a serious risk of devaluing or tarnishing Plaintiffs' reputation for
providing high quality goods and services. See SOF TR 231-39.
Sophistication: The target audience for CFH's costumed characters is often times
unsophisticated children (see generally SOF Part III), who are likely to believe that they
are being entertained by genuine Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm characters. See Lyons P 'ship,
L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding children's confusion
regarding knock off Barney highly probative); Warner Bros., Inc. v. Gay Toys, Inc., 658
F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1981) (relying on survey showing that eight out of ten children
respond immediately to the "Dixie Racer" as the "General Lee" or as "The Dukes of
Hazzard Car"); Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 188, 206 (S.D.N.Y.),
aff'd, 191 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 1999) (children are correct measure, where children drive the
purchasing decision).
Accordingly, the undisputed material facts establish trademark infringement.
II. THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT CFH HAS

DILUTED PLAINTIFFS' MARKS
New York's anti-dilution statute provides that:
Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive

quality of a mark or trade name shall be a ground for injunctive relief in cases
of infringement of a mark registered or not registered or in cases of unfair
competition, notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties
or the absence of confusion as to the source of goods or services.
16
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 360-/ (formerly 360d).
To establish a claim under New York's anti-dilution statute, a plaintiff must demonstrate
"(1) that it possesses a strong mark, one which has a distinctive quality or has acquired a
secondary meaning," and "(2) a likelihood of dilution by either blurring or tarnishment." Gucci
Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 207, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Sports Authority, Inc. v.
Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d 955, 966 (2d Cir. 1996). The first requirement, as
demonstrated above, has been met. As for the second, and as set forth below, a defendant who
traffics in inferior knock-offs both blurs and tarnishes a plaintiffs mark. See GTFM, Inc. v.
Solid Clothing, Inc.. 215 F. Supp. 2d 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
CFH Has Engaged In Dilution By Blurring
Blurring occurs "where the defendant uses or modifies the plaintiffs trademark to
identify the defendant's goods and services, raising the possibility that the mark will lose its
ability to serve as a unique identifier of the plaintiffs product." Deere & Co. v. MTD Prods.,
Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2d Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted). To determine the likelihood of blurring,
courts consider six factors: "(i) the similarity of the marks; (ii) the similarity of the products
covered; (iii) the sophistication of the consumers; (iv) the existence of predatory intent; (v) the
renown of the senior mark; and (vi) the renown of the junior mark." New York Stock Exch., Inc.
v. New York New York Hotel, LLC, 293 F.3d 550, 558 (2d Cir. 2002).
These factors are met by the undisputed facts set forth above. First, CFH replicates
Plaintiffs' character and character name trademarks, and therefore uses identical marks on
identical products. See generally SOF Part III. In addition, CFH's target customers are
unsophisticated children (see generally SOF Part III.B (events predominantly for children's
birthday parties)); Plaintiffs have shown CFH's predatory intent, by way of their intentional and
17
purposeful efforts to trade off Plaintiffs' goodwill (SOF TT 212-30); Plaintiffs' marks are iconic
(SOF 1-10); and CFH has little, if any, renown (SOF TT 231-39). Accordingly, CFH's
unauthorized use of Plaintiffs' characters, and character and franchise names has "dimin[ished]
the capacity of [plaintiffs'] mark [ ] to serve as a unique identifier of its products and services."
GTFM, 215 F. Supp. 2d at 302 (finding blurring where defendant sold knock-offs of plaintiff s
branded apparel).
B. CFH Has Engaged In Dilution By Tarnishment
Tarnishment occurs when a trademark "is linked to products of shoddy quality, or is
portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context, with the result that the public will associate
the lack of quality or lack of prestige in the defendant's goods with the plaintiffs unrelated
goods .... The mark may also be tarnished if it loses its ability to serve as a wholesome identifier
of plaintiffs products." Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., Inc., 73 F.3d 497, 507 (2d
Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted). "The sine qua non of tarnishment is a finding that
plaintiffs mark will suffer negative associations through defendant's use." Id.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling in Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Creative
House Promotions, Inc., 944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991), which was endorsed by the Second
Circuit in Deere, 41 F.3d at 43 n.7, demonstrates how CFH has tarnished Plaintiffs' marks. The
defendant in that case made award statuettes called "Star Awards" that copied the look of the
plaintiffs famous OSCAR statuette. The Ninth Circuit held that defendant's use tarnished
plaintiffs' mark under California's anti-dilution statute:
The Oscar's value lies in its distinctive design, which stands as a well-
recognized symbol of excellence in film. The Star Award, which is
strikingly similar in appearance and was originally marketed as an award
which resembles an "internationally acclaimed award," dilutes the Oscar's
distinctive value.
18
Moreover, the Star Award is available to corporations, television stations,

theater groups, and any member of the general public who desires to
purchase one. If the Star Award looks cheap or shoddy, or is disseminated
without regard to the ultimate recipient, the Oscar's distinctive quality as a
coveted symbol of excellence, which cannot be purchased from the
Academy at any price, is threatened.
Id. at 1447; see also Deere, 41 F.3d at 45 (finding dilution by tarnishment where defendant
produced a television commercial for lawnmower tractor by using slightly altered version of
plaintiffs famous Deere trademark from a proud, majestic deer, to one that was cowardly and
afraid); cf. Hormel Foods, 73 F.3d at 507 (rejecting tarnishment claim because the "sine qua non
of tarnishment is a finding that plaintiff's mark will suffer negative associations through
defendant's use" and the district court had found that defendant's use of "Spa'am, a likeable,
positive character, [would] not generate any negative associations" with plaintiffs SPAM mark).
Just as was the case with the Motion Picture Academy (944 F.2d at 1447), here,
Plaintiffs' distinctive quality is a coveted symbol of excellence. In addition, CFH's customers
necessarily associate CFH's shoddy costumed entertainment services with Plaintiffs, since
CFH's customers deliberately hire CFH to perform live performances of Plaintiffs' iconic
characters. SOF 223-30. CFH, however, has a reputation for shoddy services that is inimical
to Plaintiffs' stellar reputation for customer care. See SOF '11 5, 6, 231-39. CFH's provision of
its knock-off characters is thus likely to damage customers' positive associations with Plaintiffs'
marks (and those of their children). See, e.g., GTFM, 215 F. Supp. 2d at 302 (finding
tarnishment where defendant sold inferior quality knock-offs of plaintiffs branded apparel).
III. THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT CFH HAS

INFRINGED PLAINTIFFS' COPYRIGHTS
The Copyright Act grants Plaintiffs the exclusive right "to reproduce the copyrighted
work in copies or phonorecords" (17 U.S.C. 106(1)), as well as "to display the copyrighted
work publicly," where the work constitutes "literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
19
works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images
of a motion picture or other audiovisual work" (17 U.S.C. 106(5)). To prevail on their claims
for copyright infringement, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) they own valid copyrights in
the characters and musical works at issue; and (2) CFH has copied the works without permission.
Bois-son v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262, 267 (2d Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs Own Valid Copyrights In Their Characters and Works
Courts in this Circuit protect fictional characters from infringement under the "distinct
delineation" standard. Under this standard, "pictorial representations and verbal descriptions" of
a character that "embody an arrangement of incidents and literary expressions original with the
author" are "proper subjects of copyright and susceptible of infringement." Detective Comics,
Inc. v. Bruns Publ 'ns Inc., 111 F.2d 432, 433-34 (2d Cir. 1940).
Accordingly, courts in this Circuit have long held that comic strip, cartoon, television,
and film characters are protectable under the Copyright Act beyond simply their two-
dimensional appearance in the copyrighted works. Rather, such protection extends to the
replication of characters' appearances and personas in any form, including their physical
qualities. See Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad Cos., 720 F.2d 231, 240 (2d Cir. 1983) ("there
has been no doubt that copyright protection is available for characters portrayed in cartoons" and
finding that Superman was protected); Lyons P 'ship, 702 F. Supp. 2d at 113-15 (Bob the
Builder); Brown v Party Poopers, Inc., No. 00 CIV. 4799 (JSM), 2001 WL 1380536, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2001) (Arthur); Brown, 34 F. Supp. 2d at 856-57 (Arthur); Detective Comics,
111 F.2d at 434 (protecting "feats of strength or powers performed by 'Superman' and his
costume or appearance); Fleischer Studios v. Freundlich, Inc., 73 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1934) (Betty
Boop); King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924) (Spark Plug); Detective
20
Comics, Inc. v. Fox Publ'ns Inc., 46 F. Supp. 872 (S.D.N.Y. 1942) (Batman and Robin); Hill v.
Whalen & Martell, Inc., 220 F. 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1914) (Mutt and Jeff).
Courts outside this Circuit grant the same protection to characters, including over
Plaintiffs' own fictional characters. See, e.g., Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644, 660 (7th Cir.
2004) (when "a character []has a specific name and a specific appearance .... [n]o more is
required for a character copyright"); Walt Disney Co. v. Powell, 897 F.2d 565, 566, 570 (D.C.
Cir. 1990) (affirming "Disney's copyrights on the characters in suitMickey and Minnie [which
are] distinct, viable works with separate economic value and copyright lives of their own"); Walt
Disney Prods. v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751, 755 (9th Cir. 1978) (Disney characters enjoy
protection because they have "physical as well as conceptual qualities" and are "more likely to
contain some unique elements of expression").
Here, the longstanding copyright protection for the personas and physical attributes of
characters undoubtedly applies. Plaintiffs own numerous copyright registrations for each of the
(1) fictional characters at issue, as well as (2) the motion pictures, television shows, and comic
books in which those fictional characters are featured. These registration certificates are prima
facie evidence of Plaintiffs' copyrights.'
B. CFH Has Infringed Plaintiffs' Copyrights
CFH has infringed Plaintiffs' copyrights in three distinct ways. As a copyright owner,
Plaintiffs hold the exclusive rights to: (1) reproduce the copyrighted works in copies or
' See, e.g., Fonar Corp. v. Domenick, 105 F.3d 99, 103 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Warner Bros., 720 F.2d
at 235 ("Plaintiffs own the copyrights in various works embodying the character Superman and have
thereby acquired copyright protection for the character itself."); Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Pub.
Grp., 11 F. Supp. 2d 329, 333 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), aff'd sub nom., Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Pub.
Grp., Inc., 181 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1999) (registration for Star Trek film and television shows covered its
characters); Greenwich Film Prods., S.A. v. DRG Records, Inc., 833 F. Supp. 248, 252 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
(where owner is the same, registration of film include musical works contained in the film).
21
phonorecords (17 U.S.C. 106(1)); (2) display the copyrighted works (including individual
images of any motion pictures) publicly (id. 106(5)); and (3) perform the copyrighted works
publicly (id. 106(4)). CFH has infringed each of these rights. First, CFH "reproduce[d]"
Plaintiffs' copyrighted characters when CFH uploaded still and video images of those characters
onto the CFH website and other internet sites. See id. 106(1); EMI Christian Music Grp., Inc.
v. MP3tunes, LLC, 844 F.3d 79, 96 (2d Cir. 2016) (upholding jury verdict for infringement of
reproduction rights in cover art where defendant's software copied cover art for use on website);
see also supra at pages 7-8 (chart of infringing uses).
Second, CFH "display[ed] ... publicly" Plaintiffs' copyrighted characters when CFH
made still and video images of them available on its website and other internet sites for the
public to view. See 17 U.S.C. 106(5); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146,
1160 (9th Cir. 2007) ("[A] person displays a photographic image by using a computer to fill a
computer screen with a copy of the photographic image fixed in the computer's memory."); see
also supra at pages 7-8 (chart of infringing uses).
Third, CFH "perform[ed] ... publicly" Plaintiffs' copyrighted characters, including their
personas and story lines, when CFH sent live actors to perform as Plaintiffs' characters at themed
entertainment events and made videos and images of its live character performances available on
its website and other internet sites for the public to view. See 17 U.S.C. 106(4); supra Part
III.A; Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640, 652 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (holding
that audio streams from websites are public performances); DC Comics Inc. v. Unlimited Monkey
Bus., Inc., 598 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ga. 1984) (finding infringement where singing telegram
business sent an actor in a "Super Stud" costume to perform skits that used phrases and plot
elements from Superman); Hill, 220 F. at 359-60 (finding infringement in performance by "Nutt"
22
and "Gift" characters who were "costumed and made up" to look like Mutt and Jeff, used "direct
quotations from the more striking catchwords" of these characters, and acted "in substantial
harmony with the characters given them by the original artist"); see also supra at pages 7-8
(chart of infringing uses).
IV. SARELLI IS INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE FOR CFH'S INFRINGING CONDUCT
A. Sarelli is Personally Liable For CFH's Trademark Infringement
"In the Second Circuit, it is well-established that under the Lanham Act, a corporate
officer may be held personally liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition if the
officer is a moving, active[,] conscious force [behind the defendant corporation's] infringement."
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Ultimate One Distrib. Corp., 176 F. Supp. 3d 137, 155 (E.D.N.Y.
2016) (internal quotations omitted). "In determining individual liability under the Lanham Act,
it is immaterial ... whether [the individual] knows that his acts will result in an infringement."
Id. Rather, a "corporate officer is considered a moving, active, conscious force behind a
company's infringement when the officer was either the sole shareholder and employee, and
therefore must have approved of the infringing act, or a direct participant in the infringing
activity." Id. A showing that an officer "authorized and approved the acts of unfair competition
which are the basis of [the] corporation's liability ... is sufficient participation in the wrongful
acts" to subject the officer to liability. Id. Sarelli is the sole owner and managing director of
CFH, and he directly participated in CFH's infringing acts. See SOF 15, 16. He is personally
liable for CFH's trademark infringement.
B. Sarelli Is Vicariously Liable For CFI's Copyright Infringement
An individual defendant is vicariously liable for a corporate defendant's copyright
infringement if that individual profited from the corporation's direct infringement while
23
declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster,
lid, 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005). Sarelli is the sole owner and managing director of CFH. SOF
1rIf 15-17. He runs its operations and has refused to halt its infringing conduct, which he endorses
and directs. SOF 15-17, 214-16, 222. He is therefore vicariously liable for CFH's
infringement. Design Tex Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Vinyl Mfg. Corp., No. 04 CIV. 5002 (JSR), 2005
WL 2063819, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2005) (finding president and sole owner (with his wife)
of small company vicariously liable for copyright infringement because it was "obvious" that he
"had the ability to supervise the infringing activity").
V. DEFENDANTS ARE WILLFUL INFRINGERS
Plaintiffs also seek a determination that there is no issue of fact that Defendants' conduct
was willful, for purposes of a later statutory damages or other award. While a determination of
willfulness requires an assessment of a party's state of mind, it may be the subject of summary
judgment where the evidence of willfulness is unassailable. Agence France-Presse v. Morel, 934
F. Supp. 2d 547, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Twin Peaks Prods., Inc. v. Publ'ns Int'l, Ltd., 996 F.2d
1366, 1382 (2d Cir. 1993) (affirming finding of willfulness on summary judgment).
A copyright infringement is willful "if the defendant had knowledge that its actions
constitute an infringement." N.A.S. Import, Corp. v. Chenson Enters., Inc., 968 F.2d 250, 252
(2d Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "This knowledge may be actual or
constructive. In other words, it need not be proven directly but may be inferred from the
defendant's conduct." Id. "[R]eckless disregard of the copyright holder's rights (rather than
actual knowledge of infringement) suffices to" establish willfulness. Id Relevant factors
include whether the infringer (1) was on notice that the work was protected by copyright, (2) had
received warnings of its infringement, and (3) continued its infringement after representing that it
24
would cease doing so. Id.; see also Agence France, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 570. The standards for a
finding of willfulness for trademark infringement are the same. Innovation Ventures, 176 F.
Supp. 3d at 164-65.
Defendants have long known that Plaintiffs owned valuable copyrights and trademarks,
and that they were using Plaintiffs' intellectual property without authorization. SOF 212-230;
see also, e.g. supra Part I.B (detailing evidence of bad faith). Defendants tried to mask their
infringement, and falsely promised Plaintiffs that they would cease their infringing acts after
Plaintiffs sent cease and desist letters to CFH. See SOF In 212-30. Their deliberate and
deceitful conduct makes them the embodiment of willful infringers.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment should
be granted in all respects.
Dated: October 13, 2017 ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCI-IOLER LLP
New York, New York
By:
Louis S. Ederer
Louis.Ederer@apks.com
Matthew T. Salzmann
Matthew.Salzmann@apks.com
Tal Machnes
Tal.Machnes@apks.com
250 West 55th Street
New York, New York 10019
(212) 836-8000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
25

Characters Disney

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characters Disney

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characters Disney

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the subject matter of the dispute?

What is the subject matter of the dispute?

What arguments are the plaintiffs making?

What arguments are the plaintiffs making?

Case 1:16-cv-02340-GBD-GWG Document 60 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 30

REDACTED-PUBLICLY FILED VERSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NICK SARELLI a/k/a Avi Lieberman, and

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

October 13, 2017

I. THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS DEMONSTRATE

A. Plaintiffs Own Valid Marks That Are Entitled to Protection 13

B. CFH's Unauthorized Use of Plaintiffs' Marks Creates A

II. THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS DEMONSTRATE

A. CFH Has Engaged In Dilution By Blurring 17

B. CFH Has Engaged In Dilution By Tarnishment 18

III. THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS DEMONSTRATE

A. Plaintiffs Own Valid Copyrights In Their Characters and Works 20

B. CFH Has Infringed Plaintiffs' Copyrights 21

IV. SARELLI IS INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE FOR CFH'S

A. Sarelli is Personally Liable For CFH's Trademark Infringement 23

B. Sarelli is Vicariously Liable For CFH's Copyright Infringement 23

V. DEFENDANTS ARE WILLFUL INFRINGERS 24

Agence France-Presse v. Morel, 934 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 24, 25

Am. Broad Co. Merch., Inc. v. Button World Mfg., Inc.,

Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2001) 20

Briese Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH v. Langton,

Brown v. It's Entm't, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) 15, 20

Brown v Party Poopers, Inc.,

Cartier a Div. Of Richemont N Am., Inc. v. Aaron Faber, Inc.,

Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc.,

Coach Leatherware Co. v. AnnTaylor, Inc.,

Design Tex Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Vinyl Mfg. Corp.,

Fleischer Studios v. Freundlich, Inc., 73 F.2d 276 (2d Cir. 1934) 20

Fonar Corp. v. Domenick, 105 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1977) 21

Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004) 21

Greenwich Film Prods., S.A. v. DRG Records, Inc.,

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Ultimate One Distrib. Corp.,

King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924) 20

Lyons P 'ship, L.P. v. D&L Amusement & Entm't, Inc.,

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, 545 U.S. 913 (2005) 24

MSF Holding, Ltd. v. Fiduciary Tr. Co. Intl,

Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc.,

U.S. Polo Ass 'n, Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) 12

17 U.S.C. 106(1) 19, 22

17 U.S.C. 106(5) 19, 20, 22

-N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 360-/ ,- , , ......... ...... ....16, 17

judgment on liability and willfulness.

Plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.

costumed entertainment business (for example, trumpeting the availability of "Frozen"-themed

confusion as to the origin, source, and/or sponsorship of CFH's unlicensed services.

CFH's trafficking in low-quality knock-offs of Plaintiffs' characters, images, and names

customer complaints about CFH and its unsatisfactory services.

CFH's conduct also constitutes copyright infringement. Specifically, to promote its

consciousness of guilt. For example, Defendants referred to Plaintiffs' characters by

to Plaintiffs on liability and the issue of willfulness.

of Material Facts, dated October 13, 2017 ("SOF") Til 1-3.