385 F. Supp. 3d 576
M.D. Tenn.2019Background
- Jeff Jarrett (Tennessee resident) founded Global Force Entertainment, Inc. (GFE), owner of the "Global Force Wrestling" brand and masters for sixteen one‑hour episodes called "GFW Amped." Plaintiffs allege Anthem used and sold that content without compensation.
- Anthem Sports & Entertainment Corp. (Canadian holding company) formed Anthem Wrestling Exhibitions, LLC (Anthem Wrestling, Delaware LLC with Nashville operations). Anthem Wrestling hired Jarrett, negotiated a merger/term sheet with GFE, then terminated Jarrett after the merger failed.
- Plaintiffs allege defendants broadcast and sold the GFW Amped content (pay‑per‑view, Fight Network, DVDs, Global Wrestling Network) and used a similar green logo; plaintiffs also allege the only masters provided to defendants were later destroyed.
- Claims: copyright infringement (federal), Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act, Lanham Act trademark infringement/unfair competition, state unfair competition, Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, tortious interference, trademark cancellation for abandonment.
- Procedural posture: Anthem Sports moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Court grants dismissal of Anthem Sports for lack of personal jurisdiction; dismisses copyright claim for failure to have an issued registration before suit; leaves remaining claims against Anthem Wrestling intact for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Anthem Sports | Anthem Sports' contacts (reported Nashville office, website, relationship with Anthem Wrestling, receipt of masters from Tennessee) support general and/or specific jurisdiction | Anthem Sports is an Ontario holding company with no Tennessee employees/offices or business; Anthem Wrestling (not Anthem Sports) conducted Tennessee‑connected activities; alter‑ego not shown | No personal jurisdiction over Anthem Sports; dismissed from case |
| General jurisdiction via offices/website/alter ego | Presence of offices or an accessible website and parent control over subsidiary render Anthem Sports "at home" in Tennessee | Daimler/Goodyear bar general jurisdiction absent principal place of business/incorporation; website passive; alter‑ego not pleaded or evidenced | No general jurisdiction; plaintiffs failed to overcome corporate separateness or show continuous/systematic contacts |
| Specific jurisdiction based on contacts and consequences in Tennessee | Receiving masters from Tennessee resident and dealings relating to merger/employment support purposeful availment | Agreements and term sheets pointing to New York or to Anthem Wrestling; Anthem Sports made only a special appearance; no purposeful availment by Anthem Sports | No specific jurisdiction over Anthem Sports; plaintiffs failed to show Anthem Sports purposefully availed itself of Tennessee forum |
| Copyright claim viability | GFE applied for registration and paid fees before suit; destruction of masters prevented completion of registration | Copyright Act requires registration by Copyright Office before suit; Fourth Estate controls | Copyright claim dismissed: registration must be issued by the Copyright Office before filing suit |
| Right of publicity / TPRPA claim | Jarrett's name/likeness was used commercially without consent | Defendants contend Anthem Wrestling owns a JEFF JARRETT trademark/assignment and thus had consent/license | TPRPA claim survives at pleading stage; factual scope of trademark/assignment and consent requires discovery |
| Implied license defense to infringement claims | N/A for plaintiffs | Defendants assert Jarrett provided masters while employed/consulting and therefore granted an implied license | Implied‑license defense not resolved on Rule 12(b)(6); factual inquiry required; claims survive |
| Trademark abandonment (cancel JEFF JARRETT) | Plaintiffs allege abandonment and request cancellation | Defendants note short time since Jarrett left and statutory presumption requires 3 years of nonuse | Abandonment claim allowed to proceed; dismissal denied at pleading stage (factual issues for summary judgment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (Due process limits forum's power over nonresident defendants)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment analysis)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction "at home" framework)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits on general jurisdiction; principal place of business/incorporation paradigms)
- Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall‑Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (copyright registration must be issued by the Copyright Office before suit)
- Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir.: passive website insufficient for general jurisdiction; website interactivity relevant to specific jurisdiction)
- AlixPartners, LLP v. Brewington, 836 F.3d 543 (three‑factor test for specific jurisdiction in the Sixth Circuit)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)