Lopez v. Eventbrite, Inc.

Background

Robert G. Lopez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Meta Platforms, Inc. for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. He alleged that Meta, together with unnamed individuals, posted on Facebook an image containing his “NYC New York Cannabis” logo to advertise and promote the “NYC CANNA CRUISE” event. Lopez alleged that he owned copyrights in nine photographs displaying the logo and owned trademark and copyright rights in the logo itself.

New York City intervened after alleging that the logo was the subject of a separate trademark action involving Lopez and that the court had preliminarily enjoined Lopez from using the marks. The City’s intervenor complaint sought declarations concerning Lopez’s rights in the marks and copyright registrations, as well as injunctions restricting certain future lawsuits and other conduct.

Amendment and Copyright Claim

The court granted Lopez’s request to file a second amended complaint and treated his proposed complaint as filed. That complaint retained only copyright infringement and unjust enrichment claims. The court then dismissed the second amended complaint on its own initiative because the defects had already been fully addressed in the briefing on the first amended complaint.

To state a copyright-infringement claim, Lopez had to allege ownership of a valid copyright and unauthorized copying. The court held that Lopez did not own a valid copyright in the logo. Lopez acknowledged that the Copyright Office had refused his application for the “NYC New York Cannabis Logo Photo” because it lacked the authorship needed for copyright protection. The court also noted that words, short phrases, titles, slogans, familiar symbols, and similar designs generally are not protected by copyright. Lopez did not allege that he had satisfied the statutory procedure required to sue after a copyright-registration refusal.

The court separately rejected any claim based on Meta’s alleged copying of Lopez’s photographs. It held that the Facebook post contained only the logo, while the photographs’ protectable expression involved aspects such as composition, lighting, angle, and other choices in creating the photographs. Because the only similarity was the logo itself, the works were not substantially similar as a matter of law.

The court also held that Lopez had not plausibly alleged that Meta was directly or indirectly liable for a post made by a user identified as “Jay Dean.” Direct liability requires conduct that causes the infringement. Indirect liability may require profiting from infringement while having a right to stop it, or knowingly inducing or materially contributing to another person’s infringement. The court found that Lopez’s sparse allegations and related filings did not support a plausible theory of Meta’s liability.

Unjust-Enrichment Claim

The court held that copyright law preempted Lopez’s unjust-enrichment claim. Lopez alleged that Meta unjustly retained profits from selling event tickets and promoting images or photographs bearing his design. The court concluded that the works fell within the types of works covered by copyright law and that the rights Lopez sought to enforce—reproduction, distribution, and display—were equivalent to rights protected by copyright. The alleged enrichment did not add an element making the claim legally different from copyright infringement. The court therefore dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim.

Further Amendment

The court denied Lopez leave to amend again. It found that he had already received an opportunity to file a second amended complaint and had submitted two factual declarations in connection with the dismissal motions. Despite those opportunities, he had not cured defects going to the core of his claims. The court concluded that another amendment would be futile.

Intervenor Complaint and Disposition

The court declined, for largely prudential reasons, to exercise its discretion to consider the City’s intervenor complaint. Lopez had dropped his trademark claims in this action, all of his remaining claims were dismissed, and the City was pursuing a separate trademark action against him. The court dismissed the intervenor complaint without prejudice, leaving the City’s claims to be pursued in other actions.

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Meta’s motion to dismiss Lopez’s complaint. The court also granted Lopez’s motion concerning the City’s intervenor complaint, with the conclusion stating that the City’s claims could be asserted in other actions. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing Lopez’s claims with prejudice and to close the case.