SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATES
Previous posts on Cockygate:
Romance Author Gets Unduly Cocky Over Registered Trademark: http://legalinspiration.com/?p=503
#Cockygate Take Two: This Time It’s Judicial: http://legalinspiration.com/?p=538
Well, it’s been a weird ride. And although it seems like it’s been forever, in Federal court case terms, it’s been a fairly short one. Yesterday Faleena Hopkins and Hop Hop Productions filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice in Hop Hop Productions Inc. v. Kneupper et al:
If the judge grants the motion, and he almost certainly will, this means is that neither plaintiff (Ms. Hopkins or her company Hop Hop Productions) can file another lawsuit against the same defendants for the same legal causes of action based on the same facts. (That’s the “with prejudice” part.)
So is the #Cockygate closed? Will our sexy roosters now stay safely within the barnyard of alpha romance tales?
As usual: I am an attorney, but nothing herein should be viewed as legal advice. I am writing on the basis of both known facts and allegations, and if those allegations are changed or proven incorrect my analysis would likely change as well. You should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and familiar with the relevant law before making legal decisions.
Faleena Hopkins, the protagonist (or antagonist, depending on your POV) of the “Cockygate” saga, which I addressed in this post, has taken her grievances to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. (That’s the Federal District Court that covers New York City and its environs.) She has sued:
- Kevin Kneupper, the attorney who filed a Petition to Cancel her trademark registration for “COCKY”.
- Tara Crescent, an author who has published romance novels incorporating the word “Cocky” in their titles.
- Jennifer Watson, a publicist participating in the promotion of an anthology called “Cocktales” specifically set up to raise funds to help people who have incurred legal expenses related to the “COCKY” mark and similar sorts of marks. NOTE: Multiple persons have alleged that Ms. Watson was not involved in the creation and publication of the anthology, as I originally stated. Assuming they are correct, I regret the error.
The plaintiff has asked for a lot of things in her complaint. She wants the court to declare that her mark is valid. She wants a declaratory judgment that her mark isn’t infringing any mark of the defendants, or any other right of theirs, and an injunction to stop all the defendants from, essentially, harassing her about her mark and her use of it. She wants the people who are selling allegedly infringing books to stop it and to pay damages to her for doing it. As far as Kneupper, who hasn’t published any allegedly infringing books, she wants the court to order the USPTO to dismiss his Petition to Cancel her registration, with prejudice. (That means he can’t re-file it later, as opposed to a dismissal without prejudice, which means he could correct it and try again.) And, finally, she wants attorney’s fees from everybody.