But was the Court’s reliance on that case somewhat short sighted?
Upon review of IO
Group, Inc. it is readily apparent the ‘facts’ of that case were deemed admitted to by the
defendants, instead of proven on the merits by the plaintiffs. In its complaint, the plaintiffs asserted,
among other things: that nine copyrighted works were infringed; defendants
gained commercial advantage by use of the works; infringement continued after
notice of suit; and defendants engaged in acts to prohibit the plaintiff from
learning the full extent of the infringing conduct.
Unfortunately, instead of contesting the assertions, the
defendants were non-responsive and failed to answer the complaint. In doing so, the plaintiff was able to file
and have entered a default judgment that resulted in a defacto admission by the
defendants as to all of the assertions thereagainst, including willfulness
related to the infringement.
Since all of the assertions were deemed admitted (regardless
of how true they actually were), the Judge had little issue finding a
justification for maximum statutory damages (9 x $150,000) and all but hand
waved the plaintiffs request for full costs and reasonable attorney fees.
While IO
Group, Inc. is not a great example of a case on the merits, it is a cautionary example for anyone that is ever faced
with defending a copyright infringement suit to take it seriously. More
to the point it is imperative to provide an answer to the complaint so that a crushing,
and perhaps unwarranted, judgment cannot be entered against you.
