Russian Entertainment Wholesale, Inc. v. Close-Up Intl., Inc.
482 F. App'x 602
2d Cir.2012Background
- Close-Up sues Image and RUSCICO parties for infringement of exclusive rights in certain Russian-language films.
- New York contract law governs the interpretation of licenses between Krupny Plan and Mosfilm/Lenfilm predecessors.
- Mosfilm and Klassik/Lenfilm licenses limited rights to Russian-language versions or specific language substitutions; multilingual rights were generally not granted.
- March 1, 2004 and January 1, 2008 license transfers limited Close-Up’s exclusive rights to reproduce/distribute Russian-language DVDs only.
- District court found no direct infringement of Close-Up’s exclusive rights and denied statutory damages; it also denied Image’s post-judgment fees motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was direct infringement of Close-Up’s exclusive rights | Close-Up asserts broad exclusive rights were violated by multilingual DVDs. | Defendants argue rights were limited to Russian-language DVDs; multilingual uses fall outside. | No direct infringement found; rights were limited to Russian-language DVDs. |
| Whether secondary liability claims survive | Close-Up pled contributory/vicarious liability based on viewers' infringement. | No exclusive playback/right coverage; secondary liability fails as a matter of law. | Secondary-infringement claims fail; no liability under theory. |
| Whether district court erred in denying attorney’s fees | Close-Up contends fees should be awarded to prevailing party. | Image argues discretion supports denial; arguments were not objectively unreasonable. | Fees denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Video Trip Corp. v. Lightning Video, Inc., 866 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1989) (contractual scope governs exclusive rights; use of licenses cautions future forms)
- Barclays Capital, Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011) (de novo review of legal conclusions; clear-error standard for facts)
- Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007) (ownership of exclusive rights; contract-law analysis in licensing)
- Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC, 283 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2002) (restrictive view of new uses under exclusive licenses when not expressly provided)
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (secondary liability requires evidence of direct infringement)
- Bryant v. Media Right Prods., Inc., 603 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (factors for fee awards under § 505; district courts have discretion)
- Medforms, Inc. v. Healthcare Mgmt. Solutions, Inc., 290 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for fee determinations)
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (relevant factors for attorney’s fees in copyright actions)