Randy Orton Legal Bombshell Leaks Before SmackDown #Randy #Orton #Legal #Bombshell #Leaks #SmackDown Welcome to Americanah Blog, here is the new story we have for you today:
Randy Orton is a true veteran in the world of professional wrestling as he has worked in WWE for close to twenty years at this point. It seems he has a lot left in the tank and is more than determined to work in WWE for several more years. Triple H also recently approached for a replacement of Randy Orton.
For the few months, Randy Orton has been teaming up with Monday Night RAW Superstar Matt Riddle and together they have been known as Team RK-Bro and have been quite successful since their debut together. They even went on to become RAW Tag Team Champions after defeating AJ Styles and Omos at WWE SummerSlam back in August last year.
They would eventually lose the titles to Alpha Academy earlier this year and since then they have been engaged in a feud with Chad Gable and Otis. They then won back the titles and even defended them at WrestleMania 38. They lost the titles to the Usos and Randy Orton was written off WWE television due to a back injury.
Tattoo artist Catherine Alexander brought a lawsuit against WWE, Take-Two Interactive Software, 2K Games, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., Visual Concepts Entertainment, Yuke’s Co., Ltd. and Yuke’s LA Inc. The case is going to trial on Monday, September 26 before The U.S. District Court Southern District of Illinois
PW Insider reports that the case was presented before The U.S. District Court Southern District of Illinois, which has now issued a Memorandum and Order yesterday, officially striking down one of the defendants’ possible arguments.
Plaintiff Catherine Alexander filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Games, Inc., 2K Sports Inc., Visual Concepts Entertainment (the “Take-Two Defendants”), and World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“WWE”) asserting copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501. On September 26, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 228).
This matter is now before the Court sua sponte to clarify the Court’s Summary Judgment Order(“Order”).
Alexander moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of copying. In granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the Court found that it was undisputed that Alexander holds valid copyrights for the five tattoos at issue and that Defendants copied her copyrighted works. Therefore, the Order is amended to clarify this Court’s finding that, as a matter of law, Alexander owns a valid copyright to the five tattoos at issue in this lawsuit. Given that Defendants copied Alexander’s copyrighted tattoos, they are liable for copyright infringement unless they can establish an affirmative defense to their usage. Defendants asserted three affirmative defenses to their utilization of the tattoos in their motion for summary judgment: the existence of an implied license, the fair use doctrine, and use of the tattoos was de minimis.
In denying Defendants’ motion regarding the de minimis defense, the Court noted its doubt that the defense was viable under Seventh Circuit precedent and that the defense had been successfully invoked in other circuits to allow copying of a small and usually insignificant portion of the copyrighted works, not the wholesale copying of works in their entirety as occurred here. Therefore, the Court amends and clarifies its Order to reflect that, as a matter of law, the de minimis defense is not viable in this case and Defendants cannot assert the defense at trial.