May 22, 2012

Copyright Infringement Suit Survives Dismissal Based on Proposed Amended Complaint

Addressing for the first time the issue of whether a plaintiff can amend a copyright infringement complaint to add additional facts and obviate a statutory limitations defense, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part the district court’s judgment denying the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.   Jaso v. The Coca Cola Co., Case Nos. 10-20786; -2423 (5th Cir., Aug. 1, 2011) (per curiam). 

Plaintiff Omar Jaso alleged that he composed a musical work entitled “El Juego.”   Jaso further alleged that in 1994, he learned that The Coca Cola Company was using the song “Always Coca-Cola” in an advertising campaign.  Jaso alleged that Coca Cola derived its advertising jingle from his song without his permission.  Plaintiff Jaso then sued Coca Cola and the advertising agency that created the advertisement for copyright infringement.   

The defendants moved to dismiss Jaso’s complaint, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement was facially barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations.   Jaso’s claim should fail, the defendants argued, because Jaso was aware of his infringement claim in 1994 and Coca Cola stopped using the “Always Coca-Cola” song in its marketing efforts in 2000.  Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to provide additional details concerning his claims.  To support their assertion that Coca Cola stopped using the “Always” song in 2000, the defendants provided the district court with a print-out of a webpage entitled “Highlights in the History of Coca-Cola Advertising” taken from the Library of Congress’s website, which stated that Coca Cola stopped using the song in 2000.  The defendants’ counsel also stated on the record that Coca Cola stopped using the song in 2000.  The district court ultimately dismissed Jaso’s complaint, finding it to be barred by the statute of limitations. 

On appeal, the 5th Circuit determined that the relevant test for dismissing a claim based on the statute of limitations defense is whether the plaintiff’s response to the defense is foreclosed by allegations made in the original complaint.   Accordingly, the court evaluated the allegations made in Jaso’s proposed amended complaint to determine whether it alleged infringement within the limitations period.  Because the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint contained an allegation that the defendants distributed the allegedly infringing song “from 1994 to the present,” the court found that language sufficient to survive the defendants’ motion to dismiss, as it alleged that the defendants committed some act of copyright infringement within the limitations period.  In reversing the dismissal by the district court, the 5th Circuit declined to take judicial notice of the fact that Coca Cola stopped using the “Always” song in 2000 based on the print-out and statements made by counsel. 

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Associate

Lauren Nelson is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Chicago office.  She focuses her practice on intellectual property litigation.

312-984-6981

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.