Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

Media and Entertainment Litigation

Introduction Print

With offices in L.A., London, New York and Silicon Valley, the preeminent entertainment and media centers in the world, we have deep experience involving every aspect of the entertainment and media industries.  The firm has successfully represented studios, networks, financiers, video and social online game developers, production companies, producers, distributors, publishers, talent, talent agencies, gaming companies, sports leagues and teams, and other entertainment and media clients in virtually every kind of commercial and intellectual property dispute.  We have also served as General Counsel to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for over twenty-five years.

The entertainment and media industries are governed by arcane rules and precedents developed over a century.  At the same time, the rapid growth of new technologies and new entrants into the industries – such as video gaming and social media – has generated unique legal issues.  Experience in the industries and innovative strategies are critical to success.  Our lawyers have extensive knowledge of the issues at the heart of the entertainment and media businesses and have tried and arbitrated many high stakes cases involving claims in diverse, but sometimes related, areas such as breach of contract, copyright, trademark, idea theft, misappropriation of trade secrets, patent, right of publicity, defamation, free speech, and unfair competition.  We also have an in-depth understanding of the unique character of the entertainment and media worlds – the relatively small size of the communities and the personal interrelationships that are their hallmark. Consequently, every client can expect vigorous and aggressive representation where appropriate.  However, we recognize that is not always the case.  We are always open to exploring alternatives to litigation because that is often in the long term interests of our clients.

Some of our notable entertainment and media attorneys are: John Quinn, General Counsel of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who has also represented entertainment and media clients in a number of high profile cases; Kathleen Sullivan, the former Dean of Stanford Law School, First Amendment scholar, and nationally renowned appellate advocate, who heads the firm’s appellate practice group; Bob Raskopf, a leader in the sports, entertainment and media bars in New York, who is perhaps best known for his work on behalf of professional sports leagues and teams, newspapers and publishers; Claude Stern, who has represented a broad array of leading software developers, videogame manufacturers, online publishers and other media clients in all forms of intellectual property litigation, including copyright, patent, trade secret, trademark, and licensing disputes; Bruce Van Dalsem, who has tried and resolved disputes for studios, producers and performing artists in the film, television, music and finance businesses, securing a top five verdict in California based on the misappropriation of a film library; Gary Gans, an internationally recognized litigator in motion picture financing, production and distribution disputes, as well as copyright and idea theft cases, who has been named as one of America’s “Top Entertainment Attorneys;” Jeff McFarland, who has litigated entertainment related cases for more than 20 years, including cases involving motion picture and television series profits, video game licenses, idea theft and the “seven year rule;” and Michael Williams, who represents a satellite exhibitor and other media clients in trademark, copyright, patent, antitrust and other commercial litigation.

Our practice in the U.K. is headed by Martin Davies, who was previously Head of Litigation at the leading U.K. media and entertainment firm, Olswang LLP.  Quinn Emanuel's London office works closely with our offices in the U.S. and specializes in high-stakes commercial litigation and arbitration all over the world,  not only under the auspices of LCIA, AAA, and ICC, but also in such industry specific tribunals as IFTA, the Copyright Tribunal, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Our London partners, including Marc Becker and Alex Gerbi, are recognized and highly rated by the major industry guides, with specific recommendations for our work in the media, entertainment, communications, and sports sectors. We combine a first rate litigation capability in  commercial disputes with a deep understanding of the industries.  With both U.K. and U.S. qualified lawyers practicing in London, we have a genuinely transatlantic offering.

Back to Top

Recent Representations Print

  • We represent United Talent Agency (“UTA”) in arbitration with Creative Artists Agency (“CAA”) relating to the move of a group of CAA agents to UTA.  Among other things, this matter involves the enforceability of the agents contracts with CAA that exceed 7 years in violation of California Labor Code §2855.
  • We represented Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and Clifford Harris Jr. to assist their trial counsel in the appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the judgment against them in a copyright infringement claim raised by the heirs of Marvin Gaye.  The Gayes claimed that the musical composition “Blurred Lines,” co-written by Williams, Thicke and Harris, infringed their copyright in the Marvin Gaye song “Got to Give it Up.” In March 2015, a jury found Williams, Thicke, and Harris liable for copyright infringement and awarded a total of approximately $7.4 million in damages plus ongoing royalties. The jury verdict has received considerable media coverage based on its potential chilling effect on the creative expression of musicians and songwriters
  • We represented Google in obtaining a complete reversal of an $85 million verdict of patent infringement against Google in the Eastern District of Texas.  Plaintiff SimpleAir, Inc. had sued Google, Microsoft, and numerous other providers of smartphones and software, claiming its patents covered the technology used to send notifications to mobile devices.  Google, while represented by previous counsel, had been found by two juries to infringe and to owe $85 million in royalties.  On Quinn Emanuel’s successful appeal, the appellate court first reversed the district court’s key claim construction ruling, and then held that the well-known canon of construction that each claim term should be given meaning could not trump the overriding requirement to stay true to the patent’s specification.  As a result, the court of appeals agreed with Quinn Emanuel that the verdicts should be reversed, and instructed the Eastern District of Texas to enter a judgment of non-infringement in favor of Google.
  • We represented Alibaba against Altinex’s claims of patent and trademark infringement. The complaint claims that our client infringed utility and design patents owned by Altinex by offering to sell infringing products via listings posted on the client’s website. The complaint also claims that our client infringed Altinex’s trademarks by permitting third-party sellers to list counterfeit products, represented to be Altinex products, on the client’s website. On March 25, 2016, the Court granted a major 23-page summary judgment in favor of Alibaba on all claims, determining that Alibaba could not be liable for direct patent or trademark infringement because third-party sellers sell the allegedly infringing products and generate the allegedly infringing listings, and that Alibaba could not be liable for induced patent infringement because it did not possess the requisite knowledge and intent. The decision addresses cutting-edge issues of patent and trademark law in the Internet/e-commerce context.
  • We represented Vimeo in securing a complete victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed the denial of summary judgment to Vimeo on copyright infringement claims brought by major record labels concerning user-uploaded videos allegedly containing infringing music.  The district court had ruled that the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (17 U.S.C. § 512) protected most of the videos at issue, but also ruled that: (1) pre-1972 sound recordings are ineligible for safe harbor; and (2) questions of fact remained as to whether Vimeo had “red flag” knowledge of certain videos. Quinn Emanuel successfully sought permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal.  On appeal, the Second Circuit unanimously agreed with Quinn Emanuel  that: (1) the DMCA safe harbor does apply to pre-1972 sound recordings; (2) mere awareness of the presence of a “famous” song in a video cannot confer “red flag” knowledge of infringement; and (3) Vimeo was not willfully blind to infringing activity.  These rulings of first impression provide important protections to emerging technologies from copyright infringement claims.  Most recently, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ petition for en banc rehearing.
  • We represented The Washington Redskins in securing a judgment against several Native Americans who sought to cancel federal trademark registrations containing the word “Redskins” on the ground of disparagement.  This case involves a nearly identical petition for cancellation brought by a new group of petitioners.  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the registrations should be cancelled, and that ruling was affirmed by the Eastern District of Virginia.  We have filed an appeal to the Fourth Circuit, which is currently pending.  In addition, we filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari before judgment.  Finally, we filed an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court in In re Tam, which involves the same statute—our amicus brief was cited favorably multiple times by the Federal Circuit in its en banc decision.
  • We represented the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in vindicating its right to protect Oscar statuettes from commercial exploitation.  In 1951, the Academy adopted a bylaw restricting the ability of winners—and their successors —to sell Oscars without first offering them to the Academy for $10.  The bylaw also stated that any member who had previously been awarded an Oscar was subject to the restriction. Last year, an auction house purchased an Oscar awarded to Joseph Wright in 1942 for Best Colour Art Direction for My Gal Sal.  The auction house sought to auction the Oscar.  We filed a lawsuit to enjoin the sale and to order the auction house to sell it to the Academy for $10.  In August 2015, the Court entered a judgment in favour of the Academy declaring that the Academy has an enforceable equitable servitude providing the Academy with a right of first refusal, enjoining the auction house from auctioning the Oscar, and ordering that it sell the Oscar to the Academy for $10.  This ruling is significant because it upheld the Academy’s right to prevent Oscars from becoming commercial objects and affirmed that a restriction on alienability can run with chattel.
  • We represented DIRECTV in obtaining summary judgment on antitrust claims under the Cartwright Act brought by Basic Your Best Buy, a terminated retailer.  Summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.  The Plaintiff alleged that DIRECTV entered into a horizontal conspiracy with its other retailers through coercion not to bid on Basic’s sales leads so that DIRECTV could acquire them at a below market price.  We successfully argued that DIRECTV’s restrictions on its retailers were vertical restraints on intrabrand competition subject to the rule of reason and that Basic could not establish essential elements to prove its claim, including an anticompetitive purpose or effect, a relevant market, or antitrust injury.  The Court of Appeal affirmed.
  • We represented DIRECTV in a case brought by one of its former retailers in arbitration with the AAA, seeking damages for wrongful termination and for DIRECTV’s decision to limit that retailer during its last year in operation to operate in the state of Colorado.  The retailer sought several million dollars in lost profits, contract damages, tort damages and punitives.  We obtained a full and complete victory for DIRECTV.  In the arbitrator’s award, he denied all of the retailer’s claims in their entirety and on multiple grounds, while granting DIRECTV damages for its counterclaims and finding it to be the prevailing party for purposes of recovering its attorneys’ fees pursuant to the fees provision in the arbitration agreement.
  • We are General Counsel to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and have represented the Academy in a number of litigation matters, including a jury trial to enforce the contract by which the Academy grants its coveted OSCAR® statuettes and to enjoin their sale by the heirs of Mary Pickford, and a case that upheld its right to determine which motion pictures satisfy OSCAR® eligibility requirements. 
  • We have represented the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences in a number of matters.  For example, we obtained a permanent injunction and substantial attorneys’ fee award from an arbitration panel preventing its sister organization, the National Academy, from improperly creating new Emmy® award categories to recognize user-generated content and programming for broadband distribution and new media platforms.  
  • We defended the producers, writers, and director of the motion picture “The Last Samurai” in a lawsuit alleging that they had used material written by the plaintiffs to write and produce the film. The plaintiffs asserted claims for copyright infringement and breach of implied-in-fact contract (idea theft). After a two week trial in the United States District Court, the jury unanimously rejected the plaintiffs’ claims and rendered a verdict in favor of our clients.
  • We represented the National Football League and the Baltimore Ravens professional football franchise in a series of copyright actions stemming from the adoption by the Ravens of a logo that plaintiff alleged was substantially similar to a copyrighted drawing he had submitted for consideration. We successfully obtained summary judgment, persuading the Court that the uses at issue are fair uses.
  • We represented MHR Fund Management, its founder Dr. Mark Rachesky and affiliated funds relating to Carl Icahn’s hostile bid for Lionsgate Entertainment. Icahn brought actions in British Columbia, where he alleged shareholder “oppression,” and New York, where he alleged tortious interference with a contract between Icahn and the company. Following a four day trial, the Supreme Court of British Columbia rejected Icahn’s claims. Two months later, just days before Lionsgate’s annual meeting at which Icahn was running a proxy contest, the New York Supreme Court denied Icahn’s request for a preliminary injunction to bar MHR from voting 16 million shares of Lionsgate stock. Following the ruling, Icahn could not close his outstanding tender offer, his slate of directors was defeated in the proxy fight, and Dr. Rachesky and the management directors were re-elected to the Board.
  • We defended Google in an action involving claims for federal and common law trademark infringement, intentional and negligent interference with economic relations, fraud and unfair competition relating to Google's display of advertising in response to user queries.  We successfully moved to dismiss some of the claims at the pleading stage and, after the close of discovery, obtained judgment on all remaining claims.
  • We represented Electronic Arts in litigation challenging the rights to content contained in various popular videogames, including “Madden NFL Football.” In one action, all claims were voluntarily withdrawn after we removed the complaint from state to federal court in New York and persuaded the federal court that the claims were legally unfounded.
  • We represented legendary super-agent Ed Limato—whose clients included Denzel Washington, Mel Gibson, Steve Martin, and Richard Gere—against International Creative Management in a widely-publicized arbitration victory releasing Mr. Limato from an employment contract that would have forced him into retirement.
  • We represented the cast of the television show Modern Family in a declaratory relief action arising from contracts allegedly in violation of California's "Seven-Year Rule" regarding personal service agreements.  Shortly after filing the complaint, the cast obtained a favorable settlement.    
  • We defeated a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Activision’s sales of its phenomenally popular “Guitar Hero” videogame by members of the ’80s rock band The Romantics, who asserted that the use of their signature song “What I Like About You” violated their rights of publicity. See Romantics v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 532 F.Supp. 2d 884 (E.D. Mich. 2008). We later secured the complete dismissal of the suit on the merits, effectively validating the business model underpinning the billion dollar “Guitar Hero” franchise. See Romantics v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 574 F. Supp. 2d 758.  We also represented Activision in a lawsuit brought by the band No Doubt, who claimed that the depiction of the band in the “Band Hero” video game breached the parties’ contract and violated No Doubt’s right to publicity.  The case settled favorably just before trial. 
  • We represented Houston Casualty Company and CineFinance Insurance Services in a dispute concerning the financing of a motion picture entitled “Tekken.” Our clients guaranteed the financiers of “Tekken” that the film would be completed and delivered by November 2009, but the film was not completed and delivered until December 2010, and there was no written extension or waiver of the delivery date. We convinced the Arbitrator that the financiers knew that the film could not be completed and delivered by November 2009 and waived the delivery date. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the financiers any relief and awarded our client all of its attorneys’ fees and costs.
  • We represented ARRI, Inc. the distributor of equipment manufactured by its parent, ARRI AG, the world’s preeminent manufacturer of motion picture cameras and recipient of multiple Academy Awards for Technical Achievement, in an action concerning the development of digital motion picture cameras.  Red.com, a manufacturer of digital motion picture cameras that compete with ARRI’s cameras, accused ARRI of, inter alia, misappropriating trade secrets and violations of the Lanham Act (false advertising and unfair competition) in the development and marketing of its cameras.  Shortly after we became counsel of record, we initiated certain discovery and procedural maneuvers that resulted in an immediate settlement. 
  • We defended Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks and Ben Stiller in an action in which plaintiffs contended that the movie “Tropic Thunder” infringed upon their 2000 screenplay. Following depositions during which we elicited key admissions from the plaintiffs, they withdrew all claims in exchange for our clients’ agreement not to seek attorneys’ fees.
  • We represented GK Films LLC, the producer of such films as Argo, The Departed and Hugo in an arbitration to enforce its contractual rights in the financing of a motion picture. The arbitrator awarded GK Films approximately $1.3 million in damages as well as its attorneys’ fees and costs.
  • We represented Film Finances, Inc. in an arbitration against Fortis Bank concerning the financing of Spike Lee's film, Miracle at St. Anna. Fortis Bank claimed that the film did not comply with the financing contracts because it was too long and did not conform to the approved screenplay. We proved that the running time requirement had been waived and that the film was based on the approved screenplay. The Arbitrator awarded Film Finances declaratory relief, dismissed the cross-claim brought by Fortis, and awarded Film Finances its attorneys’ fees and costs.
  • We represented DreamWorks Animation SKG in an idea misappropriation action brought by Vertigo Entertainment regarding the animated film “How to Train Your Dragon.”
  • We represented Yandex N.V., Yandex Inc. and Yandex LLC in a lawsuit brought by Perfect 10 for alleged infringement of Perfect 10's copyrights in photographic images.  Perfect 10 claimed that Yandex, the largest search engine in Russia and other Eastern European markets, contributed to the infringements of Perfect 10’s copyrighted images by providing “links” to third-party websites that display allegedly-infringing copies of Perfect 10 images in response to user queries.  Perfect 10 also alleged that Yandex hosted infringing images in the form of thumbnails in image search results.  We obtained summary judgment on the vast majority of Perfect 10’s claims, proving that those claims were premised on “extraterritorial” acts of alleged copyright infringement that are not actionable under the U.S. Copyright Act, and that the allegedly infringing thumbnail-sized images are a “fair use” under the Copyright Act.  Once Perfect 10’s case was substantially narrowed, it quickly agreed to a settlement favorable to Yandex. 
  • We represented Time Warner Entertainment and HBO in a suit challenging the originality of the popular series “Six Feet Under.” We obtained summary judgment on  copyright and trademark infringement claims in excess of $50 million, which was later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in an often cited ruling articulating how copyright claims should be evaluated in the context of television and film properties. See Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006).
  • We have represented DIRECTV in a number of matters, including claims of unfair business practices arising out of DIRECTV’s policies relating to its Pay-Per-View programming and obtained a complete defense award in a putative class-wide arbitration.  We also represented DIRECTVagainst an individual trafficking illegal signal theft devices designed to decrypt and intercept satellite signals without authorization, obtaining a unanimous federal jury verdict finding 102 violations under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Federal Communications Act, and the Electronic Privacy Communications Act, and resulting in millions of dollars in statutory damages.
  • We represented Summit Media LLC in an action to invalidate a “closed-door” settlement agreement between the City of Los Angeles and two of the largest outdoor advertising companies in the world. The settlement agreement gave the outdoor advertising companies the contractual right to erect hundreds of jumbotron style, digital billboards anywhere in Los Angeles, with virtually no public oversight or participation—rights potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Although the key terms of the agreement had been approved by the former City Attorney, the City Council, and a highly-respected judge, we successfully invalidated the agreement, which the judge described as “poison.”
  • We represented The Walt Disney Company and Dana Owens (p/k/a “Queen Latifah”) along with the writer and various producers of the movie “Bringing Down the House” (starring Steve Martin) in a long-running copyright infringement lawsuit filed by an aspiring screenwriter. We obtained published summary judgment rulings dismissing all claims against our clients, including copyright, Lanham Act, and fraud claims.
  • We defended Film Finances, Inc. in an arbitration involving claims of fraud in the budgets of a large slate of motion pictures. The arbitration panel held that Film Finances had not approved any improper budget and issued an award in Film Finances’ favor, including an award of its attorneys' fees.
  • We represented film producer Robert Cort in a three-week jury trial resulting in a verdict finding breach of contract and fraud against a hedge fund. Our client received compensation for all his damages plus punitive damages, totaling approximately $5 million, along with an award of attorneys’ fees. Defendants appealed, and our appellate attorneys successfully persuaded the California Court of Appeal to affirm the judgment.
  • We represented Elvis Presley Enterprises in copyright litigation, enjoining the distribution of a 16-hour Elvis Presley-related DVD collection and obtaining a multimillion dollar damages award.
  • We represented Viacom and MTV Networks in a copyright action alleging that the music bed of certain MTV special programming infringed copyrights allegedly owned by a well-known rap artist. After we established that the plaintiff was not entitled to statutory damages, all claims were withdrawn in exchange for a nominal payment less than a hypothetical ex ante license fee.
  • We represented Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and Fremantle Media in litigation with a New Zealand-based production company over the format of a reality show. After we obtained an early stay of discovery and moved for summary judgment on the ground that generic elements of television programming are not entitled to copyright protection, the plaintiff withdrew its complaint with prejudice. 
  • We represented Corbis in an action in Florida against foreign professional copyright pirates, securing a TRO and preliminary injunction shutting down several global operations and obtaining a judgment in excess of $20 million against several defendants.
  • We secured the dismissal of a copyright infringement and unfair competition action against The Walt Disney Company and Pixar Animation Studios by a screenwriter seeking substantial damages and an injunction precluding future exploitation of the animated film classic “Finding Nemo.”
  • We defended Miramax Films in a “contingent compensation” suit filed in New York Supreme Court by Marty Richards, the well-known producer of the OSCAR®-winning movie musical “Chicago,” alleging that various accounting practices had deprived him of his fair share of the movie’s financial success. We successfully moved to dismiss a number of claims, after which the remaining grievances were resolved on terms favorable to our client.
  • We represented ESPN, the owner and creator of the nation’s premier action sports competition known as the X Games, in an action for trademark infringement against The X Channel, Inc., which intended to launch a national television channel featuring action sports. After we obtained a restraining order prohibiting the launch and a prompt date for a preliminary injunction hearing, the dispute settled favorably.
  • We won a jury verdict for Mattel in an action brought by a creator of a televised cartoon series seeking royalties based on the sale of toy cartoon figures.
  • We defended Data East, the manufacturer of the popular “Street Fighter II” arcade and home computer game, against copyright and trademark claims filed by a major Japanese software publisher seeking to enjoin sales of the game. The case settled favorably after a variety of successful summary judgment motions eliminated the bulk of plaintiff’s claims.
  • We represented Societe des Bains de Mer (Casino de Monte Carlo) in a dispute that resulted in an injunction against the unauthorized use of the client’s trademarks in a virtual online casino.
  • We represented a major record label in a consolidated consumer class action alleging that the largest recording companies in the United States failed to clearly label certain CDs as containing “copy protection technology” or other unspecified defects designed to preclude duplication or transfer to other media by the consumer.
  • We represented two hedge funds in an arbitration over the financing and production of a motion picture.  After we showed that the movie varied from the approved screenplay, the matter settled favorably.
  • We represented the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) in a patent infringement action brought against it by the operators of peer-to-peer networks concerning the RIAA’s efforts to monitor and combat illegal online copyright infringement.
  • We represented Napster in a patent infringement action brought by SightSound Technologies involving three patents that purported to cover the transmission of audio and video files to internet users for a fee, convincing the USPTO to invalidate all asserted claims in the patents.  We also represented Napsterin a massive copyright infringement action brought by music publishers alleging infringement of hundreds of compositions for which they claimed Napster did not have proper licenses for Napster’s subscription-based internet music website. 
  • We represented Time Inc. in a trademark infringement action brought by a television news personality seeking to enjoin publication of a women’s magazine claiming superior trademark rights in the name. We defeated a preliminary injunction motion with Court finding that plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the mark and no likelihood of confusion.
  • We represented Capitol Records and EMI Records in numerous actions involving The Beatles and their record label, Apple Corps Limited, including royalty litigation, the criminal prosecution of counterfeiters, and the alleged unauthorized use of “Revolution” in an award-winning Nike television advertising campaign.
  • We represented MP3.com in a federal jury trial on copyright claims arising from its Internet-based music service, obtaining a unanimous verdict in its favor.  We also represented MP3.comin numerous actions brought in New York and California by record labels, music publishers, artist and songwriters including Bob Dylan, James Taylor, Billy Joel, Randy Newman, Heart, and Soundgarden arising from the reproduction of musical compositions and recordings to facilitate MP3.com’s service.  We further represented MP3.comin connection with an ASCAP rate court proceeding to determine the reasonable level of public performance license payments for audio streaming over the Internet.
  • We obtained a temporary restraining order and injunction in federal court restraining our opposing counsel from issuing subpoenas to non-parties.
  • We represented Zynga against claims of copyright infringement and unfair competition relating to Zynga’s popular online social game Mafia Wars. The case settled favorably to Zynga.
  • We represented Zynga against a former employee and contractor who hacked Zynga’s secure servers. We obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the employee, based on claims of copyright infringement and violation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. After the court threatened to hold the plaintiff in criminal contempt, the case settled with a permanent injunction and monetary judgment against the defendant.

Selected U.K. Representations:

Our London partners: 

  • Operate the UK intellectual property enforcement for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.
  • Act for the ITV Group Plc companies in numerous matters, including Commercial Court proceedings against the STV Group relating to the broadcasting of Network programming, the sponsorship of Network programs, and advertising on the Network.
  • Have advised the British Phonographic Industry Limited in relation to a challenge to the terms of the Licensing Scheme for the provision of online and mobile music services to the public for private use, promulgated by the Performing Right Society and Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society.
  • Obtained a preliminary injunction in favor of the producer and distributor of James Bond films, affirmed on appeal, barring a film studio from proceeding with plans to create a  competing series of James Bond films; subsequently obtained judgment of dismissal on laches defense after trial on counterclaim for infringement, affirmed on appeal in published opinion.
  • Carried out independent investigations into phone voting irregularities for the British Comedy Awards and into the documentary “Malcolm and Barbara,” to include publication of findings and reporting to Ofcom.
  • Advised a Premier League Football Club on the only successful ground move in the history of the Football League from one area of the country to another. This included a Football Association (FA) Arbitration and Commission of Inquiry.
  • Acted for a Premier League Football Club in a player transfer dispute in a FA arbitration.
  • Acted for an international media rights agency in a Court of Arbitration for Sport arbitration against a leading European football club relating to a commercial project.
Back to Top

Partners

Partners