Morris v. Wise, 1:19-cv-02467

Plaintiff Clayton Morris sued James Wise and Holton‑Wise Property Group, LLC alleging unauthorized use of his copyrighted photo, name, likeness, voice, and sale of T‑shirts; allegedly appeared in a 2019 email blast and on a YouTube thumbnail and video.
Claims asserted: copyright infringement, misappropriation/right of publicity, invasion of privacy, common‑law trademark infringement, wiretapping, and unfair competition.
The Court dismissed the federal copyright claim as fair use and found the state‑law claims governed by Ohio law; the Ohio claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Defendants moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1117(a)(3)), the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §505), and sought sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927 (and the Court’s inherent power).
Court rejected Lanham Act fee request because no federally registered trademark was alleged and denied Rule 11 sanctions for failure to satisfy procedural prerequisites.
Court also denied attorneys’ fees under §505 and sanctions under §1927/inherent power, concluding Morris’s copyright claim was non‑frivolous and the litigation was not vexatious or groundless at the outset. Defendants conceded they used Morris’s copyrighted material and likeness without permission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to Lanham Act fees (15 U.S.C. §1117(a)(3))	Morris argued trademark claims were viable under state/common law where applicable	Defendants sought fees under §1117(a)(3) for trademark infringement	Denied — no federally registered trademark was alleged, so §1117(a)(3) does not apply
Rule 11 sanctions	Morris maintained claims rested on reasonable legal theories and factual allegations	Defendants argued pleadings were frivolous and warranted Rule 11 sanctions	Denied — Defendants failed to satisfy Rule 11(c)(2) procedural prerequisites
Copyright attorneys’ fees (17 U.S.C. §505)	Morris contended his copyright/fair use arguments were non‑frivolous and intertwined with other claims	Defendants sought fees after prevailing on fair‑use dismissal	Denied — court gave substantial weight to reasonableness of Morris’s position and found the claim was not frivolous or a major driver of costs
Sanctions under §1927 / inherent power	Morris argued litigation was not vexatious or in bad faith	Defendants argued fees as sanction for multiplying proceedings and bad faith conduct	Denied — claims were not groundless at the outset nor prosecuted in bad faith; failures were legal, not evidentiary

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016) (district courts have wide latitude to award copyright fees and must give substantial weight to reasonableness of losing party’s litigating position)
Wilson‑Simmons v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 207 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 2000) (attorney‑fee sanctions under §1927 appropriate only where claim was groundless at the outset or continued after it clearly became so)