TD Bank Not Harmed by Promotion of Infringing Book, 3rd Circuit Rules
The appeals court said the permanent injunction entered against a book written by Commerce Bank founder Vernon Hill II was overly broad, because TD Bank, which owned a copyright covering 16% of the work, had no intention of publishing its own book, but was granted an injunction based on a violation of its "right not to use the copyright."
July 01, 2019 at 05:51 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has tossed out an injunction against sales of a book by Commerce Bank founder Vernon Hill II even after finding that the work infringed on a copyright owned by TD Bank.
The permanent injunction entered against Hill's book was overly broad because TD Bank had no intention of publishing its own book, but was granted an injunction based on a violation of its “right not to use the copyright,” the appeals court said, describing dealings between the two parties as “beset by acrimony.” The appeals court remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.
The decision reverses a 2016 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler, who ordered Hill to stop selling his book, “Fans! Not Customers—How to Create Growth Companies in a No Growth World.” Kugler found in 2015 that Hill's book infringed on TD Bank's copyright of a manuscript written by Hill in 2007 discussing his career in banking. Kugler declined to issue an injunction at that time but did so in 2016 based on new evidence that Hill was promoting his book.
Hill sold his Commerce Bank to TD Bank in 2007 for $8.5 billion. In 2006 he began writing a book about his business philosophy and tenure at Commerce Bank. Commerce Bank hired a collaborator to work with Hill on the manuscript and also entered into an agreement with Portfolio, a division of Penguin Books. After Commerce was acquired by TD Bank, the work was never published.
But in 2010, after Hill published “Fans! Not Customers,” TD Bank registered Hill's 2007 manuscript with the Copyright Office and sent takedown notices to retailers. It also filed suit against Hill in the District of New Jersey for copyright infringement.
The litigation revealed that at most 16% of Hill's book infringed the 2007 manuscript, and that TD Bank never published the 2007 manuscript and had no intention to do so, the appeals court said.
The District Court's permanent injunction “exceed[ed] the bounds of its discretion” by relying on “broad propositions” instead of engaging in a “context-specific analysis,” Judge Cheryl Ann Krause wrote for the appeals court, joined by Judges Robert Cowen and Julio Fuentes.
The appeals court said that Kugler abused his discretion by relying on Hill's violation of the “right not to use a copyright” to show that TD Bank would suffer irreparable harm from the publishing of the book.
A public-interest analysis dictated that the injunction was overbroad, the appeals court added. Copyright law generally does not invite First Amendment scrutiny, but the Supreme Court has recognized the public interest in accessing works of public interest.
“Hill may perhaps not be the next prize-winning, or even best-selling, business-book author,” Krause wrote for the panel. “But he has a story to tell and readers eager to learn from him. This injunction deprived the American public of the ability to purchase this book from any lawful source for the foreseeable future.”
Howard Hogan of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C., who represented Hill, issued a statement about the ruling.
“Mr. Hill is gratified to see that the Court of Appeals unanimously and categorically vindicated his First Amendment right to tell his story and to educate readers who are eager to learn from him. The decision correctly concluded that whatever spurred TD Bank to bankroll this copyright litigation, it was not a desire to protect anything of commercial value,” Hogan said in an email message.
Matthew Doherty, a vice president and corporate communications manager for TD Bank, said the company does not comment on litigation.
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
© 2024 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 AllAmazon's Audible Hit With Privacy Class Action Over Use of Tracking Pixels
TikTok Hit With Class Action Claiming It Circumvented Age Verification Measures and Monetized Children's Data
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
- 2Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 3Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 4Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 5De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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