conference of counsel which took place on August 21, 2013. The grounds for thismotion are the following:1.
Plaintiff is suing for copyright infringement of an automobile andautomobile designs are not copyrightable.2.
Defendant did not infringe any of the DC Comics Copyrighted Worksidentified in the First Amended Complaint3.
Defendant did not infringe any of the DC Comics Copyrighted Worksidentified in P
laintiff’s responses to interrogatories.
Plaintiff has not and cannot sue defendant for infringing the copyrights tothe 1966 Batman television program or the 1989 Batman motion picture because Plaintiff does not own these copyrights.5.
Plaintiff is unable to show any separable, nonfunctional, artistic parts of theBatmobiles that it owns the copyright to and were infringed by Defendant.6.
Plaintiff cannot prevail on its trademark claims because it knew of defendants activities at least five and as many as 8 years prior to filing thecomplaint and is guilty of laches.7.
Plaintiff cannot prove trademark infringement because there is no likelihoodof confusion.As a result, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R. Civ. P. Rule 56. This motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying
Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 41 Filed 12/26/12 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:312