Lopez v. Eventbrite, Inc.

Background

Lopez brought claims against Eventbrite, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. He alleged that the defendants used, without authorization, “NYC NEW YORK CANNABIS” logos in connection with event tickets for a cannabis event cruise.

The City of New York moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The City said it had trademark rights connected to the logos and that another related case involved Lopez’s use of the same marks. In that earlier round of the dispute, Judge Oetken had issued a preliminary injunction restricting Lopez’s use of the City’s trademarks and related copies or imitations. The City sought to participate in this case to protect its interests and avoid inconsistent decisions. Meta joined the City’s motion; Eventbrite did not take a position on the docket.

Lopez opposed intervention. He argued that the City did not own copyrights in his photographs or the stylized designs, did not own trademark or service-mark rights in “NYC NEW YORK CANNABIS,” and had no ownership or infringement claim involving the logos.

Legal standard

Intervention as of right requires a timely motion, an interest related to the property or transaction in the case, a risk that the applicant’s ability to protect that interest may be impaired without intervention, and inadequate representation of that interest by the existing parties. The proposed intervenor bears the burden of satisfying all four requirements.

Court’s analysis

The court found the motion timely because the case was recently filed, remained before discovery, and no party showed that intervention would cause prejudice or delay.

The court found that the City had a direct and legally protectable interest because it sought to defend its registered marks and the case involved the same logos at issue in the related proceeding. The court emphasized that it was not deciding whether Lopez or the City had actually infringed the other’s marks or whether either party ultimately had the claimed rights.

The court also found that denying intervention could impair the City’s ability to protect its interests. As a nonparty, the City’s ability to participate in the litigation and any appeal from an unfavorable decision would be limited.

Finally, the court found that the defendants might not adequately represent the City. Lopez’s case asked whether the defendants infringed Lopez’s marks, while the related case concerned whether Lopez infringed the City’s marks. Because the defendants were not licensees of the City’s registered marks and were not in a legally aligned relationship with the City, they did not necessarily share the City’s objectives.

Ruling

Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the City’s motion to intervene as of right. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion. The court did not decide the underlying trademark or copyright infringement claims, the parties’ ultimate ownership rights, or whether Lopez’s use violated the preliminary injunction in the related proceeding.