Signazon v. Nickelson
1:13-cv-11190
| D. Mass. | Aug 6, 2013Background
- Signazon, an online sign-printing company with operations in Massachusetts and Texas, sued Ebuysigns (Craig Nickelson) for copying Signazon’s copyrighted graphic designs and sought injunctive relief.
- A temporary restraining order was granted on May 15, 2013 after a prima facie showing of appropriation; expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing followed.
- On July 2, 2013 Signazon discovered six of its copyrighted designs posted for sale on Ebuysigns’ Facebook page; screenshots and originals established the images were exact duplicates.
- Nickelson attributed the posting to a freelance consultant (Meghan Polanco) whom he had hired and said he promptly removed the images after notice; the court found this explanation dubious and noted likely direct copying from Signazon’s site.
- The court found Nickelson negligent in supervising his internet advertising and concluded Signazon met the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright infringement / likelihood of success on the merits | Signazon: images are exact duplicates of its copyrighted designs; infringement is established. | Nickelson: did not dispute copying but blamed a freelance consultant and claimed removal upon notice. | Court: Likelihood of success satisfied; images are exact duplicates and copying is proven. |
| Irreparable harm | Signazon: loss of unique business opportunities and harm to statutory IP rights warrants injunction. | Nickelson: prompt removal mitigates harm; injunctive relief unnecessary. | Court: Irreparable harm shown; prompt removal insufficient to eliminate risk and loss. |
| Scope and terms of preliminary injunction | Signazon: requests removal of the six images and prohibition on posting Signazon-derived images. | Nickelson: argued that an injunctive order was unnecessary given removal and assurances. | Court: Granted a permanent removal of the six identified images and enjoined any use/posting of Signazon images or substantial derivatives. |
| Sanctions/ remedies & ancillary relief | Signazon: sought notice of penalties and ability to seek fees. | Nickelson: did not contest penalties in substance. | Court: Put defendant on notice violations may be punished under 17 U.S.C. §504(c) and will consider attorney’s fees application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Applewood Landscape & Nursery Co. v. Hollingsworth, 884 F.2d 1502 (1st Cir. 1989) (use of precedent on evidentiary narrowing for injunction proceedings)
- Campbell Soup Co. v. Giles, 47 F.3d 467 (1st Cir. 1995) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1996) (likelihood of success is principal factor for injunction)
- E.E.O.C. v. Astra U.S.A., Inc., 94 F.3d 738 (1st Cir. 1996) (greater likelihood of success can lessen required showing of irreparable harm)
- Starlight Sugar, Inc. v. Soto, 114 F.3d 330 (1st Cir. 1997) (loss of unique or fleeting business opportunity can constitute irreparable harm)