Ceiling Fan Software LLC et al v. Blizzard Entertainment Incorporated et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $350.00, receipt number PHX 0970-6114045, filed by Ceiling Fan Software LLC, Brian Becker, Stanton Fraser (submitted by Lance Venable). (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK)

LAW OFFICES OF

1

VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C.

2

TELEPHONE [phone]

1938 EAST OSBORN ROAD
PHOENI X, ARIZONA 85016
FACSIMILE [phone]
E-MAIL DOCKETING@VCLMLAW .COM

3

Lance C. Venable (AZ Bar No 017074)
Joseph R. Meaney (AZ Bar No. 017371)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11

CEILING FAN SOFTWARE, LLC; an
Ohio Limited Liability Company; BRIAN
BECKER an individual; and STANTON
FRASER an individual

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

12

vs.

13
14

Case No.:

(JURY TRIAL REQUESTED)

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
and VIVENDI GAMES, INC.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
Plaintiffs Ceiling Fan Software, LLC, Brian Becker, and Stanton Fraser

18
19
20
21
22

(collectively “Ceiling”) seek a Declaratory Judgment that Ceiling is not infringing any
rights, copyright or otherwise, owned by Defendants Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. and
Vivendi Games, Inc. (collectively, “Blizzard"). In support of this action, Ceiling
alleges as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

23
24
25
26
27
28

1.

Plaintiff Ceiling Fan Software, LLC is an Ohio Limited Liability Company

with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.
2.

Plaintiff Brian Becker (“Becker”) is an individual residing in Cincinnati, Ohio

and is the Chief Technology Officer of Ceiling Fan Software.
3.

Plaintiff Stanton Fraser (“Fraser”) is an individual residing in Cypress, Texas

-1-

1

and is the Chief Operating Officer of Ceiling Fan Software.

2

4.

3

(“Blizzard”) is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Irvine,

4

California.

5

5.

6

Delaware Corporation having a principal place of business in Irvine, California.

7

6.

8

contacts and the business it advertises for and conducts within with this state.

9

7.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Vivendi Games, Inc. (“Vivendi”) is a

Personal jurisdiction over the Defendants is proper in this District based on

This Complaint for Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,

10

is properly filed in respect to an actual controversy of which this Court has

11

jurisdiction under the Copyright Laws of the United States (17 US.C. § 101 et. seq.)

12

and 28 U.S.C. § 1338.

13

8.

Venue is proper in this district under to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

14
SUBJECT MATTER OF CONTROVERSY AND ACTS COMPLAINED OF

15
16

9.

17

Pocket Gnome throughout the country including to customers in this District.

18

10.

19

add-on program that interacts with Blizzard’s World of Warcraft (“WoW”) computer

20

game and enables its users to automate features and steps in WoW.

21

11.

22

Becker leaving a voicemail for him and requesting that he return the call regarding the

23

sale of Ceiling’s software program.

24

12.

25

he does not stop selling his software, that Blizzard would take legal action against him

26

and his company for violating certain federal and state laws that prohibit the sales of

27

software like Pocket Gnome.

28

13.

Ceiling develops and sells software programs including one under the name

Ceiling developed the Pocket Gnome software and other related software as an

On or about November 16, 2011, counsel representing Blizzard contacted

When Becker returned the call, Blizzard’s counsel threatened him by saying if

Becker then responded to Blizzard’s counsel and requested that he provide a

-2-

1

list of the specific laws that he was allegedly violating and infringing upon Blizzard’s

2

rights.

3

14.

4

federal copyright laws, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and that his acts

5

tortiously interfered with Blizzard’s contractual relationships with its customers. The

6

email further stated that Blizzard had addressed the issues that the Ninth Circuit Court

7

of Appeals raised in its recent decision for MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment,

8

629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010), issued in December 2010 based on a case originating

9

from this district in 2006.

Blizzard’s counsel responded in an email by stating that his acts violated the

Blizzard’s threats and actions have placed Ceiling in reasonable apprehension

10

15.

11

of being sued by Blizzard, and have created an actual controversy within the scope of

12

28 U.S.C. § 2201.

13

16.

14

Blizzard and is not otherwise liable to Blizzard for any actions arising out of the sale

15

of its software.

16

17.

17

assert its perceived rights against Ceiling, its officers, and its customers.

18

18.

19

and irreparably injured and has no adequate remedy at law.

20

19.

21

interference with contracts constitutes a grave and wrongful interference with the

22

Ceiling’s business in this District.

Upon information and belief, Ceiling has not violated any rights owned by

Unless Blizzard is permanently enjoined from doing so, it will continue to

Unless Blizzard is enjoined from doing so, Ceiling will continue to be greatly
Blizzard’s charge of copyright infringement, DMCA violations, and

23
24
25
26
27
28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Ceiling prays for judgment as follows:
1. For a judgment and declaration that the sale of Ceiling’s software does not
infringe any rights owned by Blizzard;
2. For a decree enjoining and restraining Blizzard from all further charges of

-3-

1
2

infringement and violations of rights, including:
a. threatening Ceiling’s existing or prospective customers, suppliers,

3

dealers or any users of its software with statements or

4

representations that they are performing acts or engaged in activity

5

that violate Blizzard’s rights; and

6

b. initiating or maintaining infringement litigation, or threatening

7

litigation, against Ceiling’s existing or prospective customers,

8

suppliers, dealers or any users of its software that asserts or charges

9

infringement or other violation of Blizzard’s rights;

10

3. For damages in the amount proven at trial;

11

4. For Ceiling’s attorneys’ fees;

12

5. For Ceiling’s costs of suit incurred herein; and

13

6. For other relief as the Court believes is just and proper.

14
15
16

JURY DEMAND
Ceiling demands a jury trial on all triable issues.

17
18

Dated this 30th day of November 2011

19
20

Venable, Campillo, Logan & Meaney, P.C.

21
22

23
24
25
26

By /s/Lance C. Venable
Lance C. Venable SBN 017074
Joseph R. Meaney SBN 017371
1938 East Osborn Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

27
28

-4-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-