Abbasi v. Bhalodwala
149 F. Supp. 3d 1372
M.D. Ga.2015Background
- Abbasi developed and copyrighted a software product called the Lottery Tracking System (LTS) and licensed it to retailers under an EULA that barred reverse engineering. He registered the copyright in 2010 and marketed the product to convenience-store customers.
- Abbasi provided software and telephone support to Sunny Milledgeville (a Stop N Save location) in Dec. 2012–Jan. 2013; an improper login from a Milledgeville IP was later detected.
- Defendants RealTime Networking, LLC and its owner Bhalodwala marketed a "Lottery Tracking App/System" that Abbasi alleges is "substantively identical," used images copied from Abbasi’s software, and used contact information tied to the Milledgeville store.
- Abbasi alleges customers were confused and that Defendants marketed to the same customers, prompting claims including copyright infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, Georgia FBPA, fraud, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, breach of contract (EULA), and attorneys’ fees.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (or for a more definite statement) arguing shotgun pleading, lack of access/substantial similarity for copyright, weakness of trademark claims, and insufficient pleading on various state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright infringement — copying/substantial similarity | Abbasi alleges ownership, provided Defendants with the actual software and support (access), and that Defendants’ app is "substantively identical" and uses copied images | Defendants say Abbasi failed to plead access or substantial/striking similarity | Court: Denied dismissal. Alleged access plus allegations of substantial similarity suffice at the pleading stage |
| Lanham Act § 43(a) — likelihood of confusion / protectable mark | Abbasi contends his mark acquired secondary meaning and customers were confused by Defendants holding their product out as LTS | Defendants argue the mark is merely descriptive/weak and Abbasi failed to plead actual confusion | Court: Denied dismissal. Allegations of use since 2010, secondary meaning, and customer confusion meet pleading requirement |
| Georgia FBPA / O.C.G.A. § 23-2-55 (state unfair competition / fraud) | Abbasi relies on same facts as Lanham claim: passing off, deception, and intent to deceive; thus state claims survive | Defendants argued insufficient specificity and lack of pleaded intent | Court: Denied dismissal. State claims may proceed; intent and confusion adequately alleged via Lanham analysis |
| Tortious interference, unjust enrichment, breach of EULA, attorneys’ fees | Abbasi alleges improper conduct (fraud, misrepresentation, misuse of confidential info), benefit conferred and uncompensated, reverse engineering in violation of EULA, and statutory basis for fees | Defendants contend facts are too conclusory or insufficient to show reverse engineering/benefit/interference | Court: Denied dismissal. Allegations suffice to state each claim at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard; fair notice and plausible claim)
- Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone, 499 U.S. 340 (copyright: ownership and copying elements)
- Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys R Us, Inc., 611 F.3d 1308 (copying: access vs. strikingly similar; substantial similarity standard)
- Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224 (requirement that plaintiff show defendant actually copied)
- Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (actionable copying requires actual use of copyrighted material)
- Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218 (average lay observer test for substantial similarity)
- Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210 (substantial similarity analysis when access shown)
- Original Appalachian Artworks v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821 (proof of access and substantial similarity raises presumption of copying)
- Tana v. Dantanna’s, 611 F.3d 767 (Lanham Act: distinctiveness spectrum and secondary meaning)
- All Metals, Inc. v. Hinely Indus., Inc., 222 F.3d 895 (seven-factor likelihood-of-confusion test)