Retired Forums > Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum

Riddick Sues CafePress

(1/2) > >>

On the Monday before Christmas, Riddick delivered a gift to CafePress, 19 sellers, and a handful of does.

It's pretty much the same old complaint... infringement, removal of copyright management information, providing false copyright management information.

One new bit of information. Apparently Imageline "maintains an office" in Los Angeles, within the jurisdiction of the court. Did a quick Google search on the address, found that it's owned by a flex office service called Regus. At the bottom end of their scale, there's a package that gets you a local phone number, answering service, mail service, and use of one of their furnished offices 2 days a month. Goes up from there.

IIRC, Riddick had some jurisdiction issues with the rash of suits he filed in 2009. Most of the suits were in jurisdictions where the ONLY one with a business presence there were Riddick's lawyers. Neither Riddick nor the defendants had presences in the states where the suits were filed. And in a few of those cases, I believe the suits were dismissed on the jurisdictional issues, leading to quick settlements.

Looks like an old dog like Riddick can learn new tricks, like making sure he dots the I's and crosses the T's on issues like this.

Doubt CafePress will respond any earlier than it has to, but it will be interesting to see their response.

This is so typical, and exactly why we all watch the Bernina case so closely.  (Are there any Bernina updates?)  The sooner Riddick is shut down, the better.

Oscar Michelen:
In the Bernina case Riddick is on his third law firm and they are still dealing with procedural issues. This Cafe Press case does not look like its any different from his other lawsuits.  Suing people in states where they have no connection hoping for a default or nuisance settlement.

I'm going to have to disagree a bit. Riddick is out-of-pocket on the Bernina case because he's being sued instead of doing the suing. It's a bit apples and oranges to compare the two.

On the CafePress case, he's suing in CafePress's home jurisdiction and has even established a business presence for Imageline in that state. He can argue that the alleged infringement by other defendants was facilitated thriough CafePress and that they all agreed to have their dealings with CafePress "governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California," so they have all, in some form, agreed to California as an acceptable jurisdiction.

He's being more careful on jurisdiction this time, IMO.

Oscar Michelen:
Good points though I think the jurisdiction issue as to the others (especially some companies that are only physically located in Singapore is weak.  On Bernina, I was responding to the the prior post asking for a status update, I was not including that in discussion of Riddick's prior cases.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version