FACTS
The case of Bouchat v. Ravens is a case involving Frederick E. Bouchat as the plaintiff and Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, et al. as the defendants. The plaintiff was a football fun and an amateur artist who developed a logo, which will be referred to as the flying B logo henceforth. Baltimore Ravens club used this logo from the 1996 season through 1998 league seasons.
ISSUE
The logo, the plaintiff argued had copied it without his consent. Bouchat filed a suit of copyright infringement against the defendants. The court received a submission for a benchmark trial decision based on the evidence from both parties. The ruling was that the defendants had no case to answer since there was no evidence of any infringement. Therefore, there was a fair use of the copyright material by the defendants. Bouchat made further appeal but the United States Court of Appeals gave the same ruling only to reverse the decision they had made. The Court of Appeal stated that:
We reverse in part because the Ravens and the NFL did not establish fair use of the Flying B logo in the highlight films sold by the NFL and the highlight film played during the Ravens home football games. The films infringe on Bouchat’s copyrighted work, and his request for injunctive relief against this infringement is not precluded. On remand the district court will consider whether an injunction is appropriate. Bouchat v. Ravens, US at 317 (2008)
The case was remanded waiting whether it is appropriate or not for injunction.
RULE
According to the Copyright Act, a district court has the power to give an injunction “on such terms, as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17 U.S. at 502(a).
According to the Supreme Court statement:
According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four factor test before a court may grant such relief.
A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange. U.S. 388, 391 (2006)
The leading task for the court is to find out whether Bouchat has fulfilled all the four requirements for eBay upon which they are free to exercise its decision to offer injunctive reprieve.
ANALYSIS
According to eBay, copyright infringement does not bring about a non-reversible harm though it may deprive the copyright holders of their exclusive rights. Bouchat does not, in any way show that the defendants have infringed him by interfering with any commercial benefits he would have gained from the Flying B Drawing. Hence, even a little compensation for his copyrighted work he would not suffer any harm. This satisfies the first eBay test.
However, the court cannot rule that the defendants should not be compensated, as this would mean there is no infringement. Compensation, therefore, should be in place to avoid further contention over infringement. If this were in place, then the plaintiff would have satisfied the second eBay test.
Basing on the two tests carried out, Bouchat has not met the eBay test. Even if he had met all the four tests, the court would not grant him the injunction he seeks so long as the people using his copyrighted work pay him.
References
Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Ltd. P’ship, 587 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D. Md. 2008)
Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Ltd. P’ship, 619 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2010)
Christopher Phelps & Assoc., LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532, 543 (4th Cir. 2007)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)
Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2011)
