Seinfeld Wants Copyright Suit Over 'Comedians In Cars' Kicked to the Curb
The comedian says allegations by the director of the original pilot are both time-barred and simply too general to stick.
April 06, 2018 at 04:19 PM
4 minute read
Copyright infringement claims against comedian Jerry Seinfeld are a joke—and not a funny one, according to a motion to dismiss filed recently in Manhattan federal court.
In his suit, creative producer and pro se plaintiff Christian Charles claims he is, in fact, the true creator of Seinfeld's show “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee,” which premiered in 2012.
Undisputed is the fact that Charles directed the show's pilot in October 2011, but Seinfeld's attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Orin Snyder, says beyond that the suit is bogus, and is asking U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan of the Southern District of New York to kick Charles' claims to the curb.
“In support of this folly, Plaintiff manufacturers a host of objectively meritless copyright and state claims consisting of conclusory and inflammatory accusations that lack even a threadbare recital of the elements of the ten claims listed on a single page of the Complaint,” the dismissal motion states.
➤➤ Get IP news and commentary straight to your inbox with Skilled in the Art, an email briefing on Everything IP. Learn more and sign up here.
Charles claims a nearly two-decade-long working relationship with Seinfeld. The idea for Seinfeld's award-winning “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee” show came, Charles claims, after the filing of the 2000 documentary “Comedian,” which the plaintiff directed, which included a cross-country trip by Seinfeld and a friend. Charles said he pitched Seinfeld on a show in 2002 called “Two Stupid Guys in a Stupid Car Driving to a Stupid Town.” Though Seinfeld rejected the idea then, nine years later in 2011, Charles said Seinfeld reached out to discuss developing, producing and directing a car talk show.
After the concept was accepted but before it went into production, Charles said he made two attempts at claiming ownership to Seinfeld, both of which were repudiated by the comedian.
“Plaintiff never alleges (because he cannot) that Mr. Seinfeld reconsidered and agreed that Plaintiff deserved an ownership interest,” Seinfeld's motion states. Seinfeld himself says he came up with the idea after the 2000 documentary.
Charles filed the suit earlier this year, making federal and state claims. The claims, however, fail for fundamental reasons, according to Seinfeld: they're time-barred, and Charles has no actual copyright interest.
The federal Copyright Act has a three-year statute of limitations on copyright ownership, Seinfeld states. The suit, he notes, was brought over five and a half years after the date of the first episode of the show.
The idea that Charles has some copyrightable idea “based on comedians driving in a car to get coffee and engaging in comedic banter” is of a level of un-uniqueness that it remains unprotectable, according to Seinfeld. That the show came out of the very reality of Seinfeld and a comedian friend driving in a car, as acknowledged by Charles, “makes it abundantly clear that the idea is not novel.” The federal claim pre-empts any of the state issues, the motion contends.
Seinfeld goes on to accuse Charles of “not com[ing] to this Court with clean hands.” He accuses Charles of committing copyright fraud for registering the copyright “Comedians in Cars Going For Coffee” 10 days after Seinfeld obtained a copyright for “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee.” The motion says Charles “deliberately misled” the copyright office into accepting “a bogus” copyright application.
Seinfeld asks that the complaint be dismissed, with prejudice.
Charles did not respond to emails and phone calls requesting comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
What Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250