Warner Bros. Entertainment v. X One X Productions, No. 15-3728 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseWarner filed suit claiming that AVELA infringed their trademarks and engaged in unfair competition by licensing iconic pictures and phrases from films. On appeal, AVELA challenges a permanent injunction prohibiting them from licensing images from the films Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz, as well as the animated short films featuring cat-and-mouse duo Tom and Jerry. The court concluded that AVELA’s Seventh Amendment claim is not properly before the court and thus the court declined to consider it; the court rejected AVELA's alternative claim that the $2,570,000 statutory damages award is disproportionate to the offense, insufficiently reasoned, and in violation of this court’s ruling in the previous appeal; the doctrine of judicial admissions does not bar Warner’s trademark claims; likewise, judicial estoppel does not apply; Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. does not bar Warner's trademark claims; AVELA has waived the functionality and fair use defenses; the likelihood of confusion does not always require a jury trial and, on the merits, the district court did not err by rendering summary judgment on the likelihood of confusion; the court rejected AVELA's challenges to the permanent injunction; and the district court’s order is not inconsistent with the court's ruling in the prior appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Copyright. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc. v. One X Productions, et al., 644 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2011). Defendant's Seventh Amendment claim was not properly before the court and would not be considered; claim that the district court's $2.75 million statutory damages award was disproportionate to the offense, insufficiently reasoned and in violation of this court's earlier decision is rejected; neither the doctrine of judicial estoppel nor the principle of judicial admissions barred plaintiff's trademark claims; the trademark claims were not barred by Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp, 539 U.S. 23 (2003); defendant had waived the functionality and fair use defenses to plaintiff's trademark claim; the issue of likelihood of confusion does not always require a jury trial, and the district court did not err in granting plaintiff summary judgment on the issue; challenges to permanent injunction rejected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.