Hot Shots' Motion to Dismiss.pdf

10001 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
(702) 382-0711 FAX: (702) 382-5816

MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING

Case 2:12-cv-00239-KJD -RJJ Document 46

Filed 04/12/12 Page 4 of 20

1

karaoke jockeys (or “KJs”) have unlawfully copied the CDs and are using the copied music to

2

perform karaoke shows and, in the course of doing so, are displaying Slep-Tone’s SOUND

3

CHOICE trademark without Slep-Tone’s consent.

4

Slep-Tone has filed its numerous lawsuits, with little or no pre-filing investigation and no

5

warning. Slep-Tone filed suits against a large number of defendants without differentiating

6

between the parties which targets innocent property owners (such as Defendants Hot Shots Bar

7

and Grill, The Pub, LLC, Joe, Dan, Decatur Restaurant & Tavern and DDRT, LLC (collectively

8

the “Owner Defendants”) who had no knowledge of the alleged infringement, no ability to

9

control the music used by independent contractor KJs, and who have otherwise done nothing to

10

deserve the burden and bear the cost of defending against a no-warning lawsuit. Slep-Tone has

11

filed its lawsuits en masse for the purpose of coercing settlements rather than protecting

12

legitimate intellectual property rights. Slep-Tone is obviously banking on the fact that it would

13

be far less expensive for each defendant to settle the case than to fight Slep-Tone. This is

14

perhaps best evidenced by the fact that none of Slep-Tone’s lawsuits have proceeded to trial and

15

few have proceeded past the initial pleading stage.

16

This case should be dismissed because Slep-Tone has failed to state a claim upon which

17

relief can be granted. Simply put, Slep-Tone’s conclusory allegations and failure to sufficiently

18

differentiate between the defendants does not meet even the liberal notice pleading standards

19

under Iqbal2 and Twombly.3 Notably, the allegation set forth in the Complaint fail to establish a

20

plausible case of direct, contributory, or vicarious trademark infringement or unfair competition.

21

The Complaint is further barred by the doctrine of nominative fair use. Finally, the Complaint is

22

barred based upon the Dastar doctrine.4

23
24
25
2

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)

3

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).

4

See Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 37,123 S. Ct. 2041, 156 L. Ed. 2d 18 (2003).

26
27
28

Page 4 of 20
M&A:08732-02020 1611774_1.DOC 4/12/2012 10:58 AM