West Stone Works Co., Inc. v. Interglo Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Interglo Inc. (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0651-1429183), filed by West Stone Works Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I)(Cates, Taylor)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WEST STONE WORKS CO., INC.
d/b/a WEST MEMORIALS,
Plaintiff
v.

Docket No. cv-12-2122

INTERGLO INC.
d/b/a INTERGLO STONE,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff West Stone Works Co., Inc. for its Complaint against Interglo Inc.
d/b/a Interglo Stone, states as follows:
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff West Stone Works Co., Inc. d/b/a West Memorials

(“West”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Tennessee with
its principal place of business in Shelby County, Tennessee.
2.

Defendant Interglo Inc. d/b/a Interglo Stone (“Interglo”) is a

corporation organized under the laws of the State of Georgia with its principal
place of business located at 1511 Martin Villa Road, Elberton, GA 30635-3910.
3.

Interglo may be served via its registered agent for service of process

James A. Langlois, 1751 Meriweather Drive, B-3, Bogart, GA 30622.

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over West’s claims for

copyright infringement and related claims pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and § 1338(a).
5.

This Court further has subject matter jurisdiction over West’s claims

against Interglo pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1332, as complete diversity exists
between the parties. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Tennessee, and Defendant
is a citizen of the state of Georgia.
6.

Defendants are subject to in personam jurisdiction in the courts of

this state pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 20-2-201 and 20-2214.
7.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400

because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this
District and because Defendant has a sufficient connection with the Western
District of Tennessee to make venue proper in this District, as alleged in this
Complaint.
FACTS
8.

West is in the business of designing and selling memorials, including

monuments, headstones, statues, and civic and war memorials. West provides
custom designs individually tailored to each customer.

2

A.

The Kansas War Memorial.
9.

In 2004, West designed a war memorial which was purchased by the

city of Cimarron, Kansas (the “Kansas War Memorial”). A photograph of this
monument is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
10.

West owns a registered copyright in the Kansas War Memorial,

obtained by application to the United States Copyright Office with an effective
registration date of January 17, 2012, Copyright Registration Number VA 1-800014. A true and accurate copy of its Certificate of Registration is attached hereto
as Exhibit B.
11.

West contracted with Interglo to locate a manufacturer in China to

construct the Kansas War Memorial from West’s design. In furtherance of that
goal, West provided Interglo with access to West’s design drawings for the Kansas
War Memorial.
12.

After the creation of the Kansas War Memorial, Interglo requested

permission from West to include a photograph of it in its catalog. West did not
grant Interglo that permission.
13.

Interglo nonetheless has included a rendering of the Kansas War

Memorial in its catalog and on its website. A photograph of the Kansas War
Memorial as it appears in Interglo’s catalog is attached hereto as Exhibit C. A
photograph of the Kansas War Memorial as it appears on Interglo’s website is
attached hereto as Exhibit D.

3

14.

In 2007, Mr. Howard Boozer, the mayor of Amory, Mississippi

contacted West’s principal Paul West about designing a similar war memorial for
his town. Mr. Boozer indicated that he had a proposed budget of $30,000 for the
project.
15.

Mr. West advised Mr. Boozer that the Kansas War Memorial sold

for $175,000, but that West could attempt to work with him to come up with a
memorial within the town’s budget.
16.

Mr. Boozer stated that he wanted to consider the matter further, and

would be in touch. Mr. West made a few attempts to contact Mr. Boozer
thereafter, but Mr. Boozer did not return his calls.
17.

Individuals connected with the Amory, Mississippi war memorial

project later contacted Interglo about producing a war memorial identical in design
to the Kansas War Memorial.
18.

In violation of West’s copyright, Interglo appropriated West’s design

of the Kansas War Memorial and caused to be manufactured a war memorial
substantially similar to the Kansas War Memorial.
19.

This memorial (the “Mississippi War Memorial”) was dedicated in

Amory, Mississippi in November of 2011. A photograph of the Mississippi War
Memorial is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
20.

According to contemporaneous news reports, the Mississippi War

Memorial was purchased for approximately $30,000.00.

4

21.

Interglo’s manufacture and sale of the Mississippi War Memorial

infringed upon West’s copyright in the Kansas War Memorial.
B.

The “Krissy Goodman Headstone.”
22.

At the request of the family of Krissy Goodman, West designed and

caused to be manufactured a headstone which incorporates a rendering of an angel
sitting with her arms folded across her knees and looking up at a rose draped
across the top of the headstone (the “Krissy Goodman Headstone”). The angel
was modeled to resemble a figurine that Ms. Goodman had kept by her bedside
table. A photograph of the Krissy Goodman Headstone is attached hereto as
Exhibit F.
23.

West owns a registered copyright in the Krissy Goodman Headstone,

obtained by application to the United States Copyright Office with an effective
registration date of January 13, 2012, Copyright Registration Number VA-1-801658. A true and accurate copy of its Certificate of Registration is attached hereto
as Exhibit G.
24.

As with the Kansas War Memorial, West contracted with Interglo to

locate a manufacturer in China to manufacture this headstone. In furtherance of
this goal, West provided Interglo with design drawings of the headstone.
25.

Interglo has included a rendering of the Krissy Goodman Headstone

in its catalog and on its website, identified as “Flower Child Headstone.” A copy
of the pertinent page from Interglo’s catalog is attached hereto as Exhibit H. A
copy of the pertinent page from Interglo’s website is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
5

26.

In fact, Interglo’s website falsely represents that it is the designer of

the Krissy Goodman Headstone. The heading for the webpage on which this
headstone appears states:
Our Artisan Headstone Series features just a small sample of the
many unique and creative works of art from our highly skilled
designers and stone craftsmen. We take great pride in our ability to
produce beautiful yet affordably priced custom monuments like
these.
27.

Upon information and belief, West alleges that Interglo has caused

to be manufactured and has sold one or more copies of the Flower Child
Headstone to other customers.
COUNT ONE
(Copyright Infringement)
28.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing allegations as if set

forth fully herein.
29.

West is the sole owner of the copyrights in and to the Kansas War

Memorial and the Krissy Goodman Headstone.
30.

West has submitted and received the appropriate registrations for

both works with the United States Copyright Office.
31.

Interglo has infringed upon West’s copyrights by copying,

reproducing and distributing infringing materials in the United States of America
without approval or authorization from West.
32.

As a result of its wrongful conduct, Interglo is liable to West for

copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501.
6

33.

West has suffered damages as a result of Interglo’s infringement.

West is entitled to recover compensatory damages from Interglo, including lost
profits on sales of West’s exclusive proprietary and copyrighted designs, and any
and all profits Interglo has realized as a result of its wrongful conduct.
COUNT TWO
(Intentional Interference with Business Relations)
34.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing allegations as if set

forth fully herein.
35.

West had a business relationship with one or more elected officials

of the town of Amory, Mississippi, as its mayor had contacted West about
commissioning a war memorial from West.
36.

Interglo had knowledge of West’s business relationship with the

elected officials of the town of Amory, Mississippi, which was not a mere
awareness of West’s business dealings in general.
37.

Interglo intended to cause the breach or termination of the business

relationship.
38.

Interglo engaged in such conduct with improper means. Namely, by

committing copyright infringement, Interglo was able to provide Amory,
Mississippi with a lower price for the subject war memorial, thereby inducing the
town to terminate its business relationship with West.
39.

West has been damaged as a result of Interglo’s tortious interference.

7

40.

West is entitled to any and all remedies available under Tennessee

law for such intentional interference with business relationships, including
compensatory damages, treble damages, and punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief against
the Defendant:
1.

An award of judgment determining that Defendant has infringed

Plaintiff’s rights in its federally registered copyright in violation of 17 U.S.C. §
501;
2.

That the Court enter an order of impoundment pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

§§ 503 and 509(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) impounding all infringing copies of
Plaintiff’s copyrighted material that are in Defendant’s possession or under its
control;
3.

Compensatory damages;

4.

Treble damages;

5.

Punitive damages;

6.

Attorneys fees; and

7.

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable.

8

Respectfully submitted,
BURCH, PORTER & JOHNSON, PLLC

s/Taylor A. Cates
Taylor A. Cates (#20006)
Burch, Porter & Johnson, PLLC
130 North Court Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
[phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff

9