Anthony Dash v. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
731 F.3d 303
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Dash composed the instrumental track “Tony Gunz Beat” (TGB) in 2005 and registered the copyright effective October 13, 2009; alleged infringements occurred in 2008 and 2009 when a song (“Yep”) incorporating TGB played at two WWE events during Floyd Mayweather’s appearances.
- Mayweather provided WWE a CD and represented he owned rights to “Yep”; WWE played the song at WrestleMania XXIV and a RAW broadcast.
- Dash sued for copyright infringement seeking actual damages and disgorgement of profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b); statutory damages were unavailable because registration post-dated the alleged infringements.
- The district court bifurcated liability and damages, and granted summary judgment to defendants on both actual damages and profit disgorgement. Dash appealed only the damages rulings.
- The court focused on two fatal evidentiary deficiencies: (1) Dash offered only an expert report (Einhorn) estimating a maximal $3,000 lost licensing fee based on inapposite benchmarks and without showing TGB had a market value; (2) Dash stipulated he had no evidence that playing “Yep” increased any WWE revenue streams, and otherwise produced no non‑speculative causal link between the infringement and claimed profits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual damages under § 504(b): did Dash show the infringed work had fair market value? | Einhorn report shows a maximal $3,000 lost licensing fee based on WrestleMania benchmarks, so Dash suffered actual damages. | Dash never commercially exploited TGB; expert benchmarks are inapposite and speculative; no concrete evidence TGB had market value. | Held for defendants — Einhorn’s opinion was speculative, failed to establish that TGB had a fair market value, so no actual damages. |
| Profit disgorgement under § 504(b): are claimed revenues reasonably related to the infringement? | Revenues from WrestleMania and RAW that included “Yep” are attributable to the infringement and therefore recoverable. | Dash stipulated he had no evidence that “Yep” increased any revenue; many claimed streams predate or are unrelated to the use; no non‑speculative causal link. | Held for defendants — Dash failed to show a conceivable, non‑speculative causal link between infringement and the claimed revenue streams, so no profit award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, 346 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must show gross revenue reasonably related to the infringement; summary judgment appropriate where causal link is speculative)
- Bonner v. Dawson, 404 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff must establish some causal link between infringement and profit stream before burden shifts)
- On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001) (actual damages may include fair market value of lost licensing fees; plaintiff must show the thing taken had fair market value)
- Walker v. Forbes, 28 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 1994) (when infringement is a small part of a larger work, focus on profits attributable to the infringement)
- Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 772 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1985) (fair market value is primary measure of actual damages)
- Jarvis v. K2 Inc., 486 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 2007) (lost licensing fee measured by what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for the specific use)