Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co.
112 F. Supp. 3d 31
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Monster Energy used a DJ’s "Megamix" containing excerpts of five Beastie Boys songs in a promotional recap video for a 2012 event without obtaining permission; Monster posted the video online and distributed press releases.
- Beastie Boys sued Monster for copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) and false endorsement under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).
- Monster initially denied liability and filed a third-party complaint against DJ Z-Trip, alleging he authorized the use; the court granted summary judgment for Z-Trip, finding Monster’s contract and fraud theories meritless.
- A jury in June 2014 found Monster willfully infringed ten copyrights and engaged in false endorsement, awarding $1.2 million in statutory copyright damages (alternatively $1 million actual) and $500,000 on the Lanham Act claim.
- Beastie Boys moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117; the court concluded fees are appropriate for the willful copyright infringement but not for the Lanham Act claim, and awarded $667,849.14 in attorneys’ fees.
- The court directed the Clerk to tax and tabulate costs under Local Rule 54.1 and deferred resolution of line-item cost disputes to the Clerk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees under the Copyright Act (§ 505) | Award fees because Monster willfully infringed, plaintiffs prevailed, and fees further compensation and deterrence | Fees unnecessary because many issues were close and Monster’s litigation positions were objectively reasonable | Fees awarded in part: court finds fee-shifting consistent with Copyright Act purposes given willfulness, unreasonable pretrial denial of infringement, and deterrence/compensation needs |
| Entitlement to fees under the Lanham Act (§ 1117) | Award fees because jury found intentional deception and bad faith | Deny fees because litigation positions were reasonable and case not "exceptional" | Fees denied: despite jury findings, court concluded Lanham claim litigation was not sufficiently exceptional to warrant fees |
| Quantum of fee award (reasonableness / lodestar adjustments) | Request full billed fees (~$2.385M, with some self-imposed reductions) | Challenge specific entries, partner-heavy staffing, block billing, excessive rates, and work unrelated to prevailing claims | Court: compute presumptive reasonable fee, reduces requested fees by 30% for staffing/billing concerns, further reduces 20% for work allocable to Lanham claim, then shifts 50% of remaining reasonable copyright-related fees — resulting in $667,849.14 |
| Recovery of costs | Entitled to full taxable costs under Copyright and Lanham Acts | Challenges specific cost items | Court awards costs in principle but directs Beastie Boys to submit bill of costs to Clerk under Local Rule 54.1; Clerk to resolve line-item disputes initially |
Key Cases Cited
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (Sup. Ct.) (Copyright Act fees are discretionary; consider factors like frivolousness and objective reasonableness)
- Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Pub. Co., 240 F.3d 116 (2d Cir.) (Fogerty factors guide fee awards under Copyright Act)
- Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., 754 F.3d 95 (2d Cir.) (no fixed formula for awarding copyright fees; objective reasonableness important)
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (U.S.) (interpreting "exceptional" in fee-shifting statute; totality of circumstances, consider similar factors)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary should be excluded from fee awards)
- Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Vroom, 186 F.3d 283 (2d Cir.) (willful copyright infringement can support awarding attorney's fees)