Enverve, Inc. v. Unger Meat Co.
779 F. Supp. 2d 840
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- EnVerve, Inc. sues Unger Meat Company for copyright infringement, breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment.
- The Marketing and Promotions Agreement (Sept. 7, 2010) provides that upon full payment, Unger owns rights including copyrights.
- From May–Dec 2010, EnVerve provided services totaling $350,498.95 in invoices; Unger paid $174,581.72 in Oct 2010 and fell behind thereafter.
- EnVerve sent detailed invoices and descriptions on Dec 1, 2010; Unger requested an hourly breakdown, which EnVerve declined to provide as not required by the Agreement.
- As of Dec 1, 2010, Unger owed $134,219.60; EnVerve alleges Unger distributed and used EnVerve's works despite nonpayment and sought copyright registrations.
- EnVerve filed suit Jan 21, 2011; consolidated complaint includes breach of contract, copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, and account stated; EnVerve moves for preliminary injunction to enjoin use of Group Exhibit B works.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits of copyright infringement | EnVerve owns valid copyrights and Unger copied/used them in violation. | Ownership is disputed under the Agreement and Unger’s use may be permitted by payment/defenses; the case sounds in contract. | Not established; EnVerve shows only minimal likelihood of success at this stage. |
| Irreparable harm without injunction | Use damages EnVerve's ability to adapt works; reputational harm and potential insolvency concerns. | Money damages suffice; reputational harm and insolvency are speculative. | Irreparable harm not shown; damages are adequate and harm speculative. |
| Balance of harms and public interest | Injunction necessary to prevent ongoing infringement and protect IP. | An injunction would disrupt Unger’s marketing materials for which EnVerve has been paid; harms to Unger outweigh. | Balance favors Unger; no injunction is warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1997) (burden to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Goodman v. Illinois Dept. of Fin. & Prof'l Reg., 430 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2005) (standard for preliminary relief in context of state/regulatory interests)
- Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., Inc., 237 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001) (sliding scale approach to likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Judge v. Quinn, 612 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2010) (interdependent factors for preliminary injunction)
- Chi. Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Board of Educ. of Chi., 640 F.3d 221 (7th Cir. 2011) (Winter factors and balancing test applied)