Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Babybus Network Technology Co., Ltd

Background

The parties disputed the scope of the plaintiffs’ claim under Section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which concerns certain knowing misrepresentations in copyright takedown and counter-notification procedures. Before trial, the plaintiffs asked to add a narrow claim based on events involving the “Yes Yes Playground” video on Babybus’s Portuguese-language YouTube channel.

The plaintiffs alleged that they discovered on March 9, 2023, that the video was still being displayed and performed. They sent YouTube a takedown notice. On March 20, 2023, Babybus submitted a counter-notification stating that the video was Babybus’s original creation and did not infringe third-party copyrights. YouTube reinstated the video on April 3, 2023. The plaintiffs alleged that Babybus’s statements induced YouTube to restore the video for public viewing. The court had permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, and they filed an amended complaint containing the new allegations.

Scope of the Claim

The parties disagreed about whether the Section 512(f) claim also included counter-notifications that Babybus had submitted before it stipulated to certain infringements. The court clarified that the amended complaint covers only the March 20, 2023 counter-notification and no other counter-notifications.

The court explained that its permission to add the claim was based partly on the plaintiffs’ representation that the supporting facts had arisen only recently. The court said the recency of the March 20 counter-notification gave it a reason to permit the amendment. In contrast, the basic facts supporting any claim based on earlier counter-notifications were known to the plaintiffs before Babybus’s admission, creating a strong argument that adding those claims would have been unjustifiably delayed.

The court also found that references to plural “counter-notifications” were vague and did not sufficiently notify Babybus or the court that the plaintiffs intended to include earlier counter-notifications. Describing the March 20 counter-notification as an “example,” without identifying other counter-notifications, did not expand the claim’s scope. The court therefore did not permit the plaintiffs to base the Section 512(f) claim on any earlier counter-notifications.

Disposition

The order clarified the scope of the amended complaint. It did not decide whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on the Section 512(f) claim. The order was signed by United States District Judge Edward M. Chen.