Ampro Industries, Inc. -v- Dr. Farrah Gray Publishing

Filing 16

ORDER granting 15 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 09/26/13.

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

AMPRO INDUSTRIES, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. FARRAH GRAY PUBLISHING,
LLC,
Defendant.

No. 12-2696

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

On

August

10,

2012,

Plaintiff

Ampro

Industries,

Inc.

(―Ampro Industries‖) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
under

28

U.S.C.

Publishing,

LLC

§

2201

(―Farrah

against
Gray

Defendant

Publishing‖).

Dr.
On

Farrah

Gray

December

4,

2012, the Clerk of Court entered default against Farrah Gray
Publishing.

(Entry of Default, ECF No. 12.)

Before the Court

is Ampro Industries‘ June 12, 2013 Motion for Default Judgment
against Farrah Gray Publishing.
15.)

(Mot. for Default J., ECF No.

Farrah Gray Publishing has not responded and the time to

do so has passed.

For the following reasons, Ampro Industries‘

Motion for Declaratory Judgment is GRANTED.

I.

Background

Unless otherwise stated, the following facts are taken from
the

Complaint.1

Plaintiff

Ampro

Industries

is

a

Tennessee

corporation based in Memphis, Tennessee, that markets and sells
ethnic hair-care products.
2011,

Ampro

Industries

Carter-Wright

(Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1.)

entered

into

(―Carter-Wright‖),

a

contract

a

On June 6,

with

reality

Antonia

television

personality and author, to promote hair-care products through
personal appearances and endorsements.

(Id. ¶¶ 8, 15.)

Wright is not a party to this action.
Ampro

Industries

to

cross-promote

Carter-Wright‘s autobiography.
Priceless
2011.

(Id.

Inspirations
¶

9.)

The

Carter-

The contract required
Priceless

Inspirations,

(Id.)

was

published

front-matter

and

distributed

page

of

in

Priceless

Inspirations states that Carter-Wright owns the copyright and
that she reserves all rights to the book.
Farrah

Gray

Publishing

Priceless Inspirations.

is

listed

(Id. ¶¶ 11-12.)

(Id. ¶ 10); (Ex. A.)
as

the

publisher

of

Farrah Gray Publishing

publishes and distributes books throughout the United States,
including the Western District of Tennessee.

(Id. ¶ 6.)

No

entity called ―Farrah Gray Publishing‖ has registered or sought

1

The Complaint and other pleadings are deemed admitted because of Farrah Gray
Publishing‘s default. See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1038 (6th Cir. 2007); Ford Motor Co.
v. Cross, 441 F. Supp. 2d 837, 848 (E.D. Mich. 2006).

2

registration of any portion of Priceless Inspirations with the
United States Copyright Office.

(Id. ¶ 13.)

On July 18, 2012, an attorney representing Dr. Farrah Gray
and Farrah Gray Publishing sent a ―Cease and Desist Notice with
Demand Letter of Claim‖ (the ―Cease and Desist Notice‖) to Ampro
Industries.
asserted

(Id. ¶ 16); (Ex. B.)

that

Farrah

Gray

The Cease and Desist Notice

Publishing

owned

the

copyright

to

Priceless Inspirations and that Ampro Industries was wrongfully
using

the

book‘s

threatened

to

sue

image.
for

(Id.)

copyright

Farrah

Gray

infringement

Publishing

unless

Ampro

Industries paid $1.5 million for past unauthorized use or $2.5
million for past and future use of the book cover.

(Id. ¶ 17.)

The Cease and Desist Notice did not specify the provision of the
Copyright
(Id.)

Act

Ampro

that

Ampro

Industries

Industries
sought

had

allegedly

additional

violated.

information,

but

Farrah Gray Publishing did not substantiate its copyright claim
or

explain

its

failure

to

register

its

claimed

copyright

interest with the United States Copyright Office, as required by
17 U.S.C. § 411.
II.

(Id. ¶ 18.)

Jurisdiction

A court must have subject matter and personal jurisdiction
to enter a valid default judgment.

Citizens Bank v. Parnes, 376

F. App‘x 496, 501 (6th Cir. 2010) (―Personal jurisdiction over a
defendant is a threshold issue that must be present to support
3

any subsequent order of the district court, including entry of
the default judgment.‖); Williams v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d
1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (―[W]hen entry of a
default judgment is sought against a party who has failed to
plead or otherwise defend, the district court has an affirmative
duty to look into its jurisdiction both over the subject-matter
and the parties.‖)
in venue.

The court does not need to consider defects

Rogers v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 167 F.3d

933, 942 (5th Cir. 1999) (―The Supreme Court has made clear that
if

a

party

responsive

defaults

by

pleading,

failing

the

party

to

appear

waives

or

file

defects

in

a

timely

venue.‖)

(citations omitted).
A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Standing
Ampro

Industries

brings

this

cause

for

declaration

of

copyright interest under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§
101,

et

seq.

(Compl.

¶

1.)

Federal

district

courts

have

original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal
copyright laws.

28 U.S.C. § 1338.

To establish standing under the Declaratory Judgment Act,
there

must

sense.‖

be

an

―‗actual

controversy‘

in

a

constitutional

National Rifle Ass‘n of America v. Magaw, 132 F.3d 272,

279 (6th Cir. 1997).
There

are

two

controversy in an

prerequisites

for

establishing

intellectual property
4

case.

See

an

actual

ACH Food

Companies,

Inc.

v.

Wiscon

Corp.,

No.

04-2589

M1/V,

2005

WL

2114056, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2005) (citing Windsurfing
Intern. Inc. v. AMF Inc., 828 F.2d 755, 757-58 (Fed. Cir. 1987))
(adopting the Federal Circuit‘s two-pronged approach to standing
for trademark cases); Int‘l Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co., 623
F.2d

1207,

1210-11

pronged approach
plaintiff

must

litigation.

to

have

(7th

Cir.

1980)

(adopting

the

same

standing for patent cases).
a

―real

and

reasonable‖

two-

First, the

apprehension

ACH Food Companies, 2005 WL 2114056 at *5.

of

Second,

the plaintiff must have engaged in ―conduct which brought it
into adversarial conflict with the declaratory defendant.‖

Id.

There is a real and reasonable apprehension of litigation
―when there is an implied charge[] or a course of conduct on the
part of the defendant which would cause a reasonable man to fear
that he . . . faces[s] an infringement suit or threat of one.‖
Id. (quoting G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
873 F.2d 985, 990 (7th Cir. 1989)) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
In ACH Food Companies, this Court considered an email sent
from

the

defendant‘s

counsel

to

the

plaintiff

about

plaintiff‘s anticipated use of a brand name.

Id. at 4.

email

the

stated

business

plans

that

the

―blatant

defendant

considered

gamesmanship

to

trade

The

plaintiff‘s

off

a

valuable mark [to] which our client has prior rights.‖
5

the

highly
Id. at

5.

The email added that ―further legal action may be undertaken

if

and

when

you

begin

use

[contemplated brand name].‖

of

Id.

any

mark

containing

the

Although the plaintiff‘s use

of the name had not yet begun, the Court concluded that the
email was sufficient to place the plaintiff ―in a reasonable
apprehension of litigation.‖

Id.

The defendant‘s statements

demonstrated ―at least an implied, if not express, threat‖ of
legal action for infringement and ―an assertion of exclusive
right‖ to use the intellectual property in question.

Id.

Farrah Gray Publishing‘s Cease and Desist Notice states, in
part, that ―[Farrah Gray Publishing] hereby serves notice of its
intent

to

sue

infringement.‖

Ampro
(Ex.

straightforwardly
allegedly

Industries
B.)

threatens

infringing

the

The
to

.

.

Cease
sue

Priceless

.
and

Ampro

for

copyright

Desist

Notice

Industries

Inspirations

for

copyright.

Ampro Industries had already undertaken the allegedly violative
conduct.

(Ex. B.)

Ampro Industries has a real and reasonable

apprehension of litigation.
A plaintiff also must have engaged in ―a course of conduct
which brought it into adversarial conflict with the declaratory
defendant.‖

ACH Food Companies, 2005 WL 2114056, at *5.

The

plaintiff must ―show that it possessed the apparent ability and
definite

intention‖

to

engage

in

6

the

potentially

infringing

conduct.

Id. (quoting G. Heileman Brewing Co., 873 F.2d at 990)

(internal quotation marks omitted).
The Seventh Circuit has concluded that ―active preparation‖
to

produce

conduct

a

potentially

sufficient

to

infringing

create

an

product

adversarial

Heileman Brewing Co., 873 F.2d at 990.

is

a

course

conflict.

of
G.

Ampro Industries has

exceeded the active preparation in Heileman.

Ampro Industries

has used the cover image of Priceless Inspirations to promote
hair-care products since June 6, 2011.

(Compl. ¶ 15.)

The

Cease and Desist Notice was sent by Farrah Gray Publishing‘s
attorney on July 18, 2012, and Ampro Industries commenced this
action on August 10, 2012.

(Id. ¶ 16.)

Ampro Industries has

conducted marketing activities using the image for more than a
year.

Ampro Industries is in adversarial conflict with Farrah

Gray Publishing.
B. Personal Jurisdiction
―[P]ersonal jurisdiction over a defendant exists ‗if the
defendant is amenable to service of process under the [forum]
state‘s

long-arm

jurisdiction

would

statute
not

and

deny

if
the

the

exercise

defendant[]

of

due

personal
process.‘‖

Flynn v. Greg Anthony Constr. Co., 95 F. App‘x 726, 740 (6th
Cir. 2003) (quoting Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865, 871 (6th Cir.
2002)).

―Where the state long-arm statute extends to the limits

of the due process clause, the two inquiries are merged and the
7

court

need

only

determine

whether

exercising

jurisdiction violates constitutional due process.‖

personal
Bridgeport

Music, Inc. v. Still N the Water Publ‘g, 327 F.3d 472, 477 (6th
Cir. 2003) (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tryg Int‘l Ins.
Co., 91 F.3d 790, 793 (6th Cir. 1996)).

Because ―the Tennessee

long-arm statute has been interpreted as coterminous with the
limits

on

clause,‖

personal
federal

jurisdiction

courts

in

imposed

Tennessee

by

may

the

due

exercise

process
personal

jurisdiction if doing so is consistent with federal due process
requirements.

Id. (citing Payne v. Motorists‘ Mut. Ins. Cos., 4

F.3d 452, 454 (6th Cir. 1993)).
―Personal

jurisdiction

over

an

out-of-state

defendant

arises from ‗certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.‘‖

Air Prods. & Controls,

Inc. v. Safetech Int‘l, Inc., 503 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir. 2007)
(quoting
(1945)).

Int‘l

Shoe

Personal

Co.

v.

Washington,

jurisdiction

may

be

326

U.S.

specific

or

310,

316

general,

depending on the type of minimum contacts maintained by the outof-state defendant.

Id.

(citing

Reynolds v. Int‘l Amateur

Athletic Fed‘n, 23 F.3d 1110, 1116 (6th Cir. 1994)).

The Sixth

Circuit applies a three-part test to determine whether specific
personal jurisdiction exists: (1) the defendant must purposely
avail itself of the privilege of acting or causing a consequence
8

in the forum state, (2) the cause of action must arise from the
defendant‘s activities in the forum state, and (3) those acts
must have a sufficiently substantial connection with the forum
state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant
reasonable.

Air Prods., 503 F.3d at 550 (citing S. Mach. Co. v.

Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir. 1968)).
Ampro

Industries

alleges

that

the

Court

has

personal

jurisdiction because: (1) Farrah Gray Publishing purposefully
availed

itself

of

the

privilege

of

acting

in

or

causing

a

consequence in Tennessee, (2) the cause of action arises from
Farrah Gray Publishing‘s activities in Tennessee, and (3) the
consequences of those activities had a substantial connection to
Tennessee such that the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.
(Compl. ¶ 4.)
jurisdiction

The Court understands Ampro Industries‘ personal
argument

to

rest

on:

(1)

the

distribution

of

Priceless Inspirations throughout the United States, including
the Western District of Tennessee, and (2) the Cease and Desist
Notice sent by Farrah Gray Publishing‘s legal counsel to Ampro
Industries in Memphis, Tennessee.

(Compl. ¶ 9.)

1. “Purposeful Availment” Requirement for Specific
Personal Jurisdiction
To

satisfy

jurisdiction,
himself

of

the

the

‗the

first

defendant
privilege

requirement
―must
of

have

acting
9

for

in

specific

purposefully
the

forum

personal
availed
state

or

causing a consequence in the forum state.‘‖
Mach Co., 401 F.2d at 381).

Id. (quoting S.

Where a defendant‘s contacts with

the forum state result from actions undertaken by the defendant
itself, the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the
privilege of acting in the state.

Id. (citing Burger King Corp.

v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)).

Physical presence in

the forum state is not required, but a defendant‘s connection to
the forum state must be ―substantial,‖ rather than a result of
―random,‖ ―fortuitous,‖ or ―attenuated‖ circumstances.

Id.

The letter sent by Farrah Gray Publishing‘s legal counsel,
taken alone, is insufficient to satisfy the purposeful availment
requirement of personal jurisdiction.

―[A] single letter by an

attorney, concerning potential litigation cannot confer specific
jurisdiction over the attorney in the addressee‘s state when the
letter merely relates to the cause of action.‖

Cadle Co. v.

Schlichtmann, 123 F. App‘x 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing
Calphalon

v.

Rowlette,

Correspondence
numerous

and

228

sufficient
frequent,

F.3d
to

not

718,

723

satisfy
a

(6th

this

one-time

Cir.

factor

event.

2000)).
must

See,

be

e.g.,

American Greetings Corp. v. Cohn, 839 F.2d 1164, 1170 (6th Cir.
1988)
calls,

(sending
and

numerous

appointing

letters,

local

agents

satisfied purposeful availment).
was

the

only

correspondence

making
a

telephone

nine-month

period

The Cease and Desist Notice

Ampro
10

over

numerous

Industries

received

from

Farrah

Gray

Publishing.

The

Court

cannot

exercise

personal

jurisdiction over Farrah Gray Publishing on the basis of the
Cease and Desist Notice alone.
The

question

remains

whether

Farrah

Gray

Publishing‘s

distribution activities, through the stream of commerce, satisfy
the

purposeful

jurisdiction.

availment

The

requirement

plurality

of

opinion

specific

in

Asahi

personal

states

that

―placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without
more,

is

toward

not

the

an

act

forum

of

the

State.‖

defendant

Asahi

purposefully
Indus.

Metal

directed
Ltd.

Co.,

v.

Superior Court of California, Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102, 112
(1987) (O'Connor, J.) (plurality opinion).

The Sixth Circuit

has adopted this stream of commerce ―plus‖ approach to analyzing
purposeful availment.
the

Sixth

actively

Circuit,

Bridgeport Music, 327 F.3d at 480.
there

distributing

is

a

material

nationwide

and

distinction

mere

awareness

In

between
that

a

product is distributed.
A defendant corporation‘s deliberate decision to market a
product

in

language,

all
is

availment.

50

states,

sufficient

to

as

evidenced

support

a

by

express

finding

of

contract

purposeful

Tobin v. Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc., 993 F.2d 528,

543-44 (6th Cir. 1993) (applying but not adopting the stream of
commerce
company

―plus‖
is

approach).

―likely

to

However,

distribute‖
11

mere

knowledge

products

that

nationally

a
is

―insufficient
availment.‖
Ampro

conduct

upon

which

to

predicate

purposeful

Bridgeport Music, Inc., 327 F.3d at 480.
Industries

alleges

that

Farrah

Gray

Publishing

publishes and distributes books throughout the United States,
including the Western District of Tennessee.
purposes

of

default

judgment,

Ampro

(Compl. ¶ 6.)

Industries‘

For

allegations

establish that Farrah Gray Publishing‘s distribution activities
are

carried

distributed

out

with

direct

nationwide.

knowledge

Directly

that

products

distributing

are

Priceless

Inspirations in the Western District of Tennessee establishes
that ―the defendant has engaged in ‗[] overt actions connecting
the defendant with the forum state.‘‖

Id. at 478-79 (quoting

Dean

F.3d

v.

Motel

Cir.1998)).

6

Operating

L.P.,

134

1269,

1274

(6th

Based on its book distribution activities, Farrah

Gray Publishing has purposefully availed itself of the forum.
2. “Arising

From”

Requirement

for

Specific

Personal Jurisdiction
The second requirement for specific personal jurisdiction
is

that

the

plaintiff‘s

claims

contacts with the forum state.

―arise

from‖

the

defendant‘s

Air Prods., 503 F.3d at 553.

The Sixth Circuit has phrased this test in a number of ways,
including ―whether the causes of action were ‗made possible by‘
or ‗lie in the wake of‘ the defendant‘s contacts, . . . or
whether the causes of action are
12

‗related to‘ or ‗connected

with‘

the

defendant‘s

(internal

citations

contacts

omitted).

standard is lenient.

with

the

forum

Regardless

Bird, 289 F.3d at 875.

Id.

phrasing,

of

state.‖

the

A cause of action

need not formally arise from a defendant‘s contacts with the
forum.

Id.

Rather, this test requires only ―that the cause of

action, of whatever type, have a substantial connection with the
defendant‘s

in-state

activities.‖

Bird,

289

F.3d

at

875

(quoting Third Nat‘l Bank in Nashville v. Wedge Group, Inc., 882
F.2d

1087,

1091

(6th

Cir.

of

the

1989))

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
The

gravamen

Publishing‘s

actions

cast

Complaint
doubt

on

is

Ampro

that

Farrah

Industries‘

with respect to portions of Priceless Inspirations.‖
19.)

Gray

―rights

(Compl. ¶

Without a determination about the copyright in Priceless

Inspirations, Ampro Industries faces uncertainty in ―promoting
Priceless Inspirations through its own marketing.‖

(Id. ¶ 20.)

There is a ―substantial connection‖ between Ampro Industries‘
claim

and

Farrah

Ampro

Industries‘

Gray
claim

Publishing‘s
arises

contacts

from

Farrah

with
Gray

Tennessee.

Publishing‘s

contacts in Tennessee.
3. “Reasonableness”

Requirement

for

Specific

Personal Jurisdiction
The third requirement is that ―the acts of the defendant or
consequences

caused

by

the

defendant
13

[]

have

a

substantial

enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of
jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable.‖

Air Prods., 503

F.3d at 554 (quoting S. Mach. Co., 401 F.2d at 381).

If the

first two requirements for specific personal jurisdiction are
met, an inference arises that the third requirement is also met.
Bird, 289 F.3d at 875.

If ―a defendant who purposefully has

directed

at

his

activities

jurisdiction,

he

must

forum

present

a

residents

seeks

compelling

to

case

defeat

that

the

presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction
unreasonable.‖
Because

Air Prods., 289 F.3d at 554.
the

first

two

requirements

for

personal

jurisdiction have been met, there is an inference that the Court
may

reasonably

Publishing.

exercise

jurisdiction

See Bird, 289 F.3d at 875.

over

Farrah

Gray

Farrah Gray Publishing

has defaulted and has not presented a compelling case that any
additional

considerations

jurisdiction unreasonable.

make

the

Court‘s

exercise

of

See Air Prods., 289 F.3d at 554.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court‘s exercise of personal
jurisdiction over Farrah Gray Publishing comports with federal
due

process

Subject-matter

requirements
and

personal

and

Tennessee‘s

jurisdiction

Court may enter a valid default judgment.

14

long-arm

are

proper,

statute.
and

the

III.

Standard of Review

Rule

55(b)(2)

of

the

governs default judgments.

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).

―Once a

default is entered against a defendant, that party is deemed to
have

admitted

all

of

the

well

pleaded

allegations

complaint, except those relating to damages.‖

in

the

Microsoft Corp.

v. McGee, 490 F. Supp. 2d 874, 878 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (citing
Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110-11 (6th Cir.
1995)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) (―An allegation—other
than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a
responsive

pleading

is

required

and

denied.‖).

Unlike factual allegations, ―a party in default does

not admit mere conclusions of law.‖

the

allegation

is

not

Anderson v. Johnson, No.

98-1931, 1999 WL 1023753, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 4, 1999).
Because the Clerk of Court has entered default against it,
Farrah Gray Publishing is deemed to have admitted the factual
allegations
relating

to

in

Ampro

damages.

Industries‘
If

the

Complaint,

factual

other

allegations

than

those

provide

a

sufficient legal basis, the Court will enter a default judgment.
See Coach, Inc. v. Cellular Planet, No. 2:09-cv-00241, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 45087, at *7 (S.D. Ohio May 7, 2010) (citing Arista
Records, Inc. v. Beker Enters., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1311-12
(S.D. Fla. 2003)).
IV.

Analysis
15

Plaintiff Ampro Industries seeks a ―judicial determination
that [Farrah Gray Publishing] does not possess any enforceable
copyright interests in Priceless Inspirations and that [Ampro
Industries]
interest

would

by

marketing.‖

not

therefore

be

infringing

promoting

Priceless

Inspirations

upon

through

any

such

its

own

(Compl. ¶ 20.)

The Copyright Act gives copyright owners exclusive rights
to

reproduce,

prepare

derivative

works

from,

distribute,

and

publicly perform or display a copyrighted work, and allows ―the
legal

or

beneficial

owner

of

an

exclusive

right

under

a

copyright . . . to institute an action for any infringement of
that particular right.‖

See 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501(b).

A claim

of copyright infringement requires proof of ―(1) ownership of a
valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the
work that are original.‖

Feist Publ‘ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel.

Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); see also Zomba Enters.,
Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc., 491 F.3d 574, 581 (6th Cir.
2007); ATC Dist. Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions
& Parts, Inc., 402 F.3d 700, 705 (6th Cir. 2005).
The front-matter page of Priceless Inspirations shows that
Carter-Wright owns the book‘s copyright.
A.)

The

front-matter

page

reserved‖ to Carter-Wright.

also
(Id.)

shows

(Compl. ¶ 10); (Ex.
that

―all

rights

are

Defendant‘s Cease and Desist

Notice represents that Farrah Gray Publishing owns the copyright
16

to Priceless Inspirations, but no entity called ―Farrah Gray
Publishing‖ has registered or sought registration of any portion
of

Priceless

Office.

Inspirations

with

the

United

States

Copyright

to

Priceless

(Compl. ¶ 13.)

Carter-Wright
Inspirations,

owns

and

no

the

other

copyright

individuals

or

entities

have

registered any portion of Priceless Inspirations with the United
State Copyright Office.
and

Carter-Wright

promotion

of

Inspirations.

have

Ampro

(Compl. ¶¶ 10, 13.)
a

contract

Industries

providing
products

Ampro Industries
for

the

and

cross-

Priceless

(Compl. ¶ 15.)

Given the admitted factual allegations of the Complaint,
Carter-Wright is the owner of a valid copyright in Priceless
Inspirations.

The

Ampro

Industries–Carter-Wright

contract

authorizes Ampro Industries‘ use of Priceless Inspirations for
promotional activities.

There is no evidence of unauthorized

copying of an original work.
V.

Conclusion

The Court DECLARES that Farrah Gray Publishing does not
possess

any

enforceable

copyright

interest

in

Priceless

Inspirations and that Ampro Industries would not infringe upon
any such interest by promoting Priceless Inspirations through
its own marketing.

17

So ordered this 26th day of September, 2013.

/s_Samuel H. Mays, Jr. _____
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18