Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rundquist v. Vapiano (D.D.C. July 20, 2011)

Rundquist v. Vapiano (D.D.C. July 20, 2011)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 119 |Likes:
Published by Andrew Pequignot
Court (D.D.C.) addresses the extraterritorial reach of the Copyright Act in a case involving the alleged unauthorized use of photographs in an Italian restaurant chain.
Court (D.D.C.) addresses the extraterritorial reach of the Copyright Act in a case involving the alleged unauthorized use of photographs in an Italian restaurant chain.

More info:

Published by: Andrew Pequignot on Jul 22, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain


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





et al.
,Defendants.Civil Action No. 09-2207 (BAH)Judge Beryl A. Howell
In this case, an international photographer claims that Vapiano restaurants are illegallyexploiting her copyrighted works to achieve their chic look. Plaintiff Ewa-Marie Rundquist allegesthat Vapiano restaurants in the United States and around the world are unlawfully displaying hercopyrighted photographs as a central part of their décor. The plaintiff initiated this case against threecorporations she believes to be responsible for this infringement: Vapiano SE, a European companybased in Germany, and Vapiano International, LLC and Vapiano Franchise USA, LLC, both of whichare incorporated in the United States.
Defendant Vapiano SE moves to dismiss all claims against iton grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction and, in the alternative, moves to dismiss allclaims relating to infringement occurring in Vapiano restaurants outside the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on grounds of 
 forum non conveniens
. The Court concludes that theplaintiff is entitled to a sixty-day period of jurisdictional discovery to ascertain the facts about whatVapiano SE characterizes as the plaintiff’s “guesswork” about the company’s contacts with thisforum. Vapiano SE’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is therefore denied without
The plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), for a federal questionarising under the U.S. Copyright Act.
Am. Compl. ¶ 9.
Case 1:09-cv-02207-BAH Document 28 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 46
2prejudice. With regard to allegations concerning infringement occurring outside the United States,the Court grants in part and denies in part Vapiano SE’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Count I or Count IIof the Amended Complaint to the extent that the counts assert Vapiano SE’s direct, contributory, orvicarious liability under the Copyright Act for infringement taking place wholly outside the UnitedStates, but allowing plaintiff’s other claims under the Copyright Act and foreign copyright laws toproceed. Finally, the Court denies Vapiano SE’s motion to dismiss claims regarding foreign acts of infringement for
 forum non conveniens.
Plaintiff Ewa-Marie Rundquist, a Swedish citizen, is a “highly experienced fashion, lifestyle,and advertising photographer” based in Stockholm, Sweden. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 12. According tothe Amended Complaint, her work has appeared in numerous well-known magazines, such as
, and
, and has been featured in advertising campaigns for a number of internationalbrands.
 ¶ 12.In addition to her fashion and advertising work, the plaintiff’s pictures have also appeared inseveral cookbooks, including a cookbook entitled
 La Pizza: The True Story from Naples
 La Pizza
¶ 13.
 La Pizza
contains a number of the plaintiff’s “original and unique”photographs of Italian street scenes and Italians eating and cooking pizza (hereinafter the “ProtectedPhotographs”).
¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff states that she owns these photographs and that they “constitutecopyrightable subject matter,” which is protected under the Copyright Act and by provisions of theBerne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (hereinafter “BerneConvention”), to which the United States is a signatory.
 ¶¶ 3, 15, 17. Every copy of 
 La Pizza
Plaintiff was a national of Sweden on the date that her protected photographs were first created and first published.
 ¶17. Sweden, the United States, and all of the other countries where defendants’ Vapiano restaurants are located, are
Case 1:09-cv-02207-BAH Document 28 Filed 07/20/11 Page 2 of 46
3contains a notice that the plaintiff is the copyright owner of certain photographs appearing in the book and provides the page numbers on which the plaintiff’s Protected Photographs appear.
¶ 16.Plaintiff alleges that her Protected Photographs are being used without permission as a“central décor element” in an upscale Italian restaurant chain named Vapiano, which has restaurantslocated in the United States and around the world.
 ¶¶ 1, 24-25. Specifically, the plaintiff allegesthat large mural-sized black and white reproductions of her Protected Photographs appear in allVapiano restaurants, which have the same décor and a consistent look.
 ¶¶ 23, 25. Plaintiff alsoalleges that her Protected Photographs appear on Vapiano websites.
¶ 28. In addition to using herphotographs without authorization, in no instance is the plaintiff referenced as the photographer orowner of the Protected Photographs.
 ¶ 26.On November 20, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court against Vapiano SE;Vapiano International, LLC (hereinafter “Vapiano International”); and Vapiano Franchise USA, LLC(hereinafter “Vapiano USA”). The plaintiff alleges that defendant Vapiano SE, a European publiccorporation based in Germany, is a franchisor that has established sixty Vapiano restaurants in oversixteen countries around the world, and has more than a hundred new restaurants in development.
5, 18.
Vapiano SE is alleged to direct and control the appearance and other operational aspects of all Vapiano restaurants.
 Id. ¶ 
Additionally, plaintiff claims that Vapiano SE has ownershipinterests in many, if not all, Vapiano restaurants.
signatories to the Berne Convention. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works art. 3, Sept. 9,1886 - Nov. 16, 1988, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27, 1161 U.N.T.S. 30 (entered into force Mar. 1, 1989) (hereinafter “BerneConvention”);
see also
Contracting Parties, Berne Convention, W
,http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15 (last visited July 20, 2011). As a citizen of asignatory to the Berne Convention, plaintiff is afforded the protections that copyright laws of other signatories to theBerne Convention provide to their nationals.
See Golan v. Holder 
, 609 F.3d 1076, 1080 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The BerneConvention requires each signatory to provide the same copyright protections to authors in other member countries that itprovides to its own authors.”). Additionally, the Berne Convention does not require the plaintiff to obtain a copyrightregistration for her photographs from the United States Copyright Office or any other copyright office where defendants’Vapiano restaurants are located as a pre-requisite for copyright protection. Berne Convention art. 5.
Case 1:09-cv-02207-BAH Document 28 Filed 07/20/11 Page 3 of 46

You're Reading a Free Preview

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