Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

United States District Court,S.D. New York.JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., and Wiley Publishing, Inc., Plaintiffs,v.Marcus STUART d/b/a "Stuartmm," Defendants.No. 05CIV6360JGKGWG.Jan. 4, 2006.Marcus Stuart, New York, NY, pro se.REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONGORENSTEIN, Magistrate J.I. BACKGROUND*1(Cite as: 2006 WL 12963, *1 (S.D.N.Y.))On July 12, 2005, plaintiffs John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and Wiley Publishing, Inc.(collectively, "Wiley") filed a complaint against defendant Marcus Stuart d/b/a"stuartmm" ("Stuart"). See Complaint, filed July 12, 2005 (Docket # 1). Thecomplaint seeks damages and injunctive relief for copyright and trademarkinfringement and trademark counterfeiting under 17 U.S.C. § 501, 15 U.S.C. §1114(1), and 15 U.S.C. § 1117, as well as common law unfair competition. SeeComplaint ¶¶ 12-29. Stuart was served with the complaint, see Affidavit ofService, filed Aug. 26, 2005 (Docket # 4), but did not answer. The district courtthereafter ordered Stuart to show cause why a default judgment should not beentered against him. See Order to Show Cause, filed Sept. 20, 2005 (Docket # 6);Affidavit of Service, filed Sept. 19, 2005 (Docket # 5). On September 29, 2005,the district court entered an Order stating that a default judgment would beentered against Stuart and referring the case to the undersigned for an inquestregarding damages. See Order, filed Sept. 29, 2005 (Docket # 8).By Order dated October 7, 2005, this Court directed Wiley to make submissionssupporting its request for damages against Stuart. See Scheduling Order forDamages Inquest, filed Oct. 7, 2005 (Docket # 9) ("Scheduling Order"), at 1. Acopy of the order was mailed to Stuart. In response, Wiley submitted a declarationand Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law seeking to recover statutorydamages in the amount of $10,000 and attorney's fees and costs in the amount of$3,682.50. SeePlaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filedNov. 16, 2005 (Docket # 10) ("Proposed Findings"); Declaration of William Dunneganin Support of Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filedNov. 16, 2005 (Docket # 11) ("Dunnegan Decl."), ¶¶ 6-7. The Court gave Stuartuntil December 21, 2005, to submit any response, see Scheduling Order at 2, butStuart did not avail himself of this opportunity.Neither party requested a hearing on the issue of damages. The Second Circuit hasheld that an inquest into damages may be held on the basis of documentary evidence"as long as [the Court has] ensured that there was a basis for the damages

specified in [the] default judgment." Fustok v. ContiCommodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir.1989); accord Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co. Inc., 951 F.2d504, 508 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1006 (1992). As Wiley's submissionsprovide such a basis, no hearing is required. The following findings of fact andconclusions of law are based on those submissions. In addition, in light ofStuart's default, Wiley's properly-pleaded allegations, except those relating todamages, are accepted as true. See, e.g., Cotton v. Slone, 4 F.3d 176, 181 (2dCir.1993) ("factual allegations are taken as true in light of the general defaultjudgment"); Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155,158 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1080 (1993); Time Warner Cable of N.Y.C.v. Barnes, 13 F.Supp.2d 543, 547 (S.D.N.Y.1998).II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW*2(Cite as: 2006 WL 12963, *2 (S.D.N.Y.))Wiley owns the copyrights in its reference books, one of which is FOR DUMMIES.Complaint ¶ 13. Wiley has received numerous U.S. Copyright Registrations, seeComplaint Schedule A, and owns numerous trademarks for general reference books,including FOR DUMMIES, seeComplaint Schedule B. Stuart has copied certain ofWiley's reference books, including its FOR DUMMIES line of reference books, intoelectronic format and sold those infringing copies on eBay. Complaint ¶ 11. Stuarthas infringed "at least 6 separate copyrighted works of Wiley." Dunnegan Decl. ¶5; Complaint ¶¶ 13-15, Schedule A.Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), Wiley is entitled to statutory damages in an amountof at least $750 per infringing work up to a maximum of $30,000 per infringingwork. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). In addition, a court may award an enhancedrecovery of up to $150,000 per infringing work if the infringement was willful.Id. § 504(c)(2); see, e.g., Viacom International, Inc. v. Fanzine International,Inc., 2001 WL 930248, at *3-*5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2001) ($500,000 in enhancedstatutory damages under § 504(c)(2) awarded for defendants' willful infringementof five copyrighted television characters). Because Wiley seeks an award ofstatutory damages within the range permitted under § 504(c)(1), Wiley is notrequired to prove willfulness.The amount sought by Wiley, $1666.67 per infringement, is at the low end of therange permitted by statute. An award in excess of the $750 minimum is appropriatein this case given that Stuart's infringement was conducted for a commercialpurpose and Stuart has declined the opportunity to offer any explanation of hisconduct in mitigation of damages. In addition, an elevated award is appropriatefor deterrence purposes given the ease with which the violation here could berepeated. Accordingly, Wiley's request for a $10,000 award should be granted.Under the copyright law, a court may in its discretion award costs and reasonableattorneys' fees. See 17 U.S.C. § 505. Given Stuart's default, it is impossible toapply all the factors normally used to guide a court's exercise of discretion inthis area. See Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996, 1011 (2d Cir.1995)(factors include "frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both inthe factual and in the legal components of the case) and the need in particularcircumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence").Nonetheless, given the obvious need to compensate Wiley for its attorneys' fees,the importance of deterrence, and the small amount sought in this case, an award