We are pleased to announce a significant victory in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Kublanovsky Law successfully obtained summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a music distribution platform client in a federal copyright infringement action.

A plaintiff alleged that our client, along with several other defendants, unlawfully distributed his song recordings without his consent in violation of the Copyright Act of 1976. The plaintiff sought statutory damages and injunctive relief compelling the removal of his recordings from all digital platforms.

Our team moved for summary judgment, submitting detailed attorney declarations documenting exhaustive searches of the U.S. Copyright Office’s public catalog under every plausible variation of the plaintiff’s name, artistic alias, and purported song titles. Those searches returned no valid copyright registrations. Our investigation further revealed that the plaintiff had registered his recordings with a private third-party website of dubious legitimacy, mistakenly believing it to be affiliated with the U.S. Copyright Office. We demonstrated that such registration carries no legal force under the Copyright Act.

The Magistrate Judge issued a thorough Report and Recommendation granting summary judgment in our client’s favor, which the District Court adopted in full after conducting an independent de novo review. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff’s failure to register his works with the U.S. Copyright Office was a fatal, incurable defect. Leave to replead was denied.

This result highlights our firm’s ability to achieve decisive, efficient outcomes in complex federal intellectual property litigation.

For more information about our intellectual property litigation practice, please contact our office.

We are pleased to announce a successful outcome on behalf of our client in a complex post-judgment enforcement proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County.

Our client obtained a final judgment exceeding $4.6 million USD against a defendant arising out of a contract dispute originally litigated in Hong Kong. With that judgment remaining wholly unsatisfied, Kublanovsky Law pursued aggressive post-judgment enforcement efforts, including serving a discovery subpoena on a third-party witness believed to possess information concerning the location of the judgment debtor’s assets. The witness, whose parents allegedly served as past controllers and trustees of the judgment debtor, refused to comply with the subpoena, demanding that our client first produce all documents intended to be used at the deposition before she would appear.

We moved to compel compliance with the subpoena, arguing that no such pre-deposition disclosure obligation exists under New Jersey’s discovery rules and that requiring advance production of our litigation materials would improperly compromise privileged attorney work product. The witness filed a cross-motion seeking to compel production of those documents before proceeding with the deposition.

The court granted our motion to compel in full and denied the witness’s cross-motion entirely. The court found that our client was entitled to fully explore the witness’s knowledge of the judgment debtor’s assets and that the witness had failed to demonstrate the good cause necessary to obtain any form of protective relief.

This result reflects our firm’s tenacity in pursuing all available avenues to enforce our clients’ judgments and protect their rights in complex, multi-jurisdictional matters.

For more information about our commercial litigation practice, please contact our office.

We are pleased to announce a recent litigation victory on behalf of a prominent music distribution and publishing platform client in a civil court proceeding in New York City.

A plaintiff commenced an action against our client alleging breach of contract, unlawful use of property, conspiracy to defraud, and damage to the plaintiff’s brand, seeking approximately $25,000 in damages. The plaintiff also sought injunctive relief compelling our client to remove musical content from a major streaming and video platform.

Our firm moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety prior to answering, arguing that the plaintiff’s allegations were vague, conclusory, and legally insufficient under New York’s pleading standards. Specifically, we demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to identify any specific contractual provisions that were allegedly breached, failed to plead fraud with the requisite particularity, and asserted claims that did not constitute cognizable causes of action under New York law. We further argued that the Civil Court lacked authority to grant the injunctive relief sought.

The court agreed on all grounds, granting our motion to dismiss in full. The court found that even under a liberal reading of the pleadings and after considering all submitted affidavits, the plaintiff’s speculative and conclusory allegations failed to state any viable cause of action.

This result demonstrates our ability to achieve early, cost-effective resolutions for our clients by identifying and attacking legally deficient claims at the outset of litigation.

For more information about our commercial litigation practice, please contact our office.