Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Tattoo Art v. Tat Int'l (E.D. Va. June 29, 2011)

Tattoo Art v. Tat Int'l (E.D. Va. June 29, 2011)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 102 |Likes:
Published by Andrew Pequignot
Court (E.D. Va.) agrees with 2d Cir. in Bryant: only one statutory damage award per book of tattoos.
Court (E.D. Va.) agrees with 2d Cir. in Bryant: only one statutory damage award per book of tattoos.

More info:

Published by: Andrew Pequignot on Jul 16, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/18/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED
STATESDISTRICTCOURTEASTERN
DISTRICTOF
VIRGINIANorfolkDivision
TATTOO
ART,INC.,
A
VirginiaStock
Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v#
Civil
Action
No.
2:10cv323
TATINTERNATIONAL,
LLC,
A
MichiganLimitedLiability
Company,
and
Kirk
A.
Knapp,
Individually,
Defendants.
FINDINGS
OF
FACTANDCONCLUSIONS
OF
LAW
Pursuant
to
this
Court'sOpinion
and
OrderdatedFebruary
28,
2011,
this
matter
wastried
before
the
Court,
as
to
the
issue
of
damages
only,
on
March
1
and
2,
2011.
At
the
conclusion
oftrial,
theCourt
instructed
the
parties
to
fileproposed
findings
of
fact
andconclusions
of
law
within
two
weeks
from
the
datethatthetrial
transcriptsweremade
available
to
them.
On
March
24,
2011,
defendantsTAT
international,LLC
("TAT")
andKirk
A.
Knapp
("Knapp"
and,
collectivelywith
TAT,the
"defendants")filed
anunopposed
motion
for
an
extension
of
time
to
make
such
filing.
TheCourt
granted
such
motion
onthatsame
date,
and
the
parties
timely
madetheirrespectivefilings
on
March
28,
2011.
Case 2:10-cv-00323-MSD -DEM Document 77 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 77 PageID# 1358
 
Pursuant
to
anOrder
ofthis
Court
dated
June
3,
2011,
an
on-the-record
telephonicstatusconferencewas
held
on
June
17,
2011
to
address
certain
legalissuesthat
were
not
adequately
addressed
in
theparties'
proposed
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
Plaintifffiled
a
memorandum
regarding
thoseissues
ontheeve
of
the
statusconference;
the
Court
alloweddefendantsuntilclose
of
businessonJune
21,
2011
to
file
a
response
to
plaintiff's
memorandum,
butdefendants
filed
no
response.
Afterconsideration
of
the
evidenceofferedby
the
parties
attrial,
their
respective
proposed
findings
of
factand
conclusions
of
law,
their
argumentsduring
the
telephonic
status
conference,
as
well
as
the
record
of
this
matter
as
a
whole,the
Court
now
makesthe
followingfindings
of
fact
andconclusions
of
law.
TheCourtalsodetails
herein
the
manner
in
which
judgment
in
favor
of
plaintiff
isto
beentered
after
the
Court
hasissued
a
Final
Order
on
plaintiff'srequest
for
attorney's
fees.
I.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
This
Court
previously
recounted
the
proceduralhistory
of
the
instantmatter
in
detail
in
its
February
28,
2011
Opinionand
Order,see
Docket
No.
48
at
6-8,
and
will
thereforeonly
partially
reiterate
that
history
herein.
Theinstantmatter
is
the
secondlawsuitplaintiffTattoo
Art,
Inc.
("Tattoo
Art")has
Case 2:10-cv-00323-MSD -DEM Document 77 Filed 06/29/11 Page 2 of 77 PageID# 1359
 
filedagainst
defendantsTATand
Knapp.
Plaintifffiled
the
firstlawsuit
in
this
Court,
Civil
Action
No.
2:09cv314,on
July
7,
2009.
Defendantsthereafter
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
on
thebasis
of
a
mandatorymediationprovision
in
the
license
agreementbetween
the
parties,
andafterbriefingand
a
hearing
on
December
21,
2009,
this
Court
granted
that
motionbyOpinion
andOrderdatedMay
14,
2010,
dismissing
thecase
without
prejudice.Thepartiesthereafter
submitted
the
matter
to
mediation,
butwereunable
to
resolvetheir
dispute.
Plaintiff
filed
its
complaint
in
the
instantmatter
on
July
2,
2010,
alleging
(as
it
had
inits
prior
lawsuit)
causes
of
action
for
breach
ofthe
parties'
licenseagreementand
copyright
infringement,
andrequesting
damages,
attorney's
fees,
costs,
and
a
permanent
injunction.
Defendantsanswered
the
complaint
on
August
11,
2010.
Plaintifffiled
a
motion
for
partialsummaryjudgment
asto
liability
on
December
10,
2010,
whichwasfully
briefed,
and
on
which
this
Court
held
a
hearing
on
February
11,
2011.
By
OpinionandOrderdatedFebruary
28,
2011,
thisCourt
granted
plaintiff's
motion.As
previously
noted,this
matter
was
consequentlytriedbefore
theCourt,asto
theissue
of
damages
only,
on
March
1
and
2,
2011,
and
the
partiesthereafter
submitted
proposed
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
on
March
28,
2011.
OnMay
5,
2011,
plaintifffiled
a
renewed
Case 2:10-cv-00323-MSD -DEM Document 77 Filed 06/29/11 Page 3 of 77 PageID# 1360

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->