by visitor blogger Elizabeth Townsend Gard
[Eric’s note: this is the second of a three-part series from Prof. Gard looking at the Copyright Claims Board and some of its outcomes. The first part looked at defendant opt-outs.]
As of March 15, 2023, the CCB has issued 9 first default notices. These all must do with the respondent not registering for the eCCB — the web signifies that the system communicates — or not responding to the declare.
Claims should go by way of the compliance stage earlier than service of course of is allowed. The complainant should look ahead to 60 days to see if the respondent opts out. Generally that will get prolonged. Then, the Order to Pay Second Submitting price and register for the eCCB happens after the opt-out interval has ended with out an opt-out. The Claimant pays $60, and the respondent is meant to sign-up with the eCCB. Generally the respondent is a bit sluggish. In Sedlik v. Culinary Investments, LLC, et al, the respondent did not register for the eCCB.
Generally the primary default is as a result of the respondent has not filed the response to the declare, as required by the Scheduling Order. This occurred in Flores v. Mitrakos, 22-CCB-0035, and inside six days, the respondent had filed the response. (Half 3 will talk about the Flores case in additional element).
No Response (after being served)
What occurs if the respondent fails to reply to the eCCB requirement after the opt-out interval has run out and after service? Default willpower. The paperwork from Corjulo v. Mandrell, 22-CCB-0008, offers us slightly perception into this. Right here is the subsequent step: “The Board orders the claimant to submit written direct testimony in assist of a default willpower. 37 C.F.R. § 227.2(a). Written direct testimony consists of: a celebration assertion describing the claimant’s place on the claims; claimant’s proof; and optionally available witness statements.”
This additionally occurred in Hursey v. Lavaca LLC, 22-CCB-0056. The respondent didn’t adjust to the scheduling order, and received a primary default discover, then a second default discover, after which Order to Submit Default Direct Get together Assertion. Each of those circumstances are nonetheless in course of, so we do not need the claimant response or the CCB’s closing willpower but.
The others–Sedlik v. Culinary Investments, LLC, 22-CCB-0004, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Fusion Teams, Inc., et al, 22-CCB-0067, Hursey v. Quinney, 22-CCB-0163, Bronner v. EssayZoo, 22-CCB-0012, and Oaks v. Coronary heart of Gold Pageant System Inc., et al, 22-CCB-0046–are a step behind, with default discover(s) for not registering with the eCCB and/or lacking the deadline for responding.
Will the CCB reschedule a convention due to a trip if requested? Sure!
In Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Arif Skyline Cafe LLC, et al., 22-CCB-0098, the claimant requested for the convention to be rescheduled due to a pre-paid trip. The respondent had not registered for the eCCB, and obtained a second discover to register, and the primary default discover for not registering for the eCCB and never submitting a response. The claimant then requested for a change in the schedule: “Counsel for Claimant has a pre-paid household trip scheduled for March 1-5, 2023, and won’t have entry to a pc or Zoom on the time at present scheduled for the Pre-Discovery Convention. Because the Respondents haven’t but appeared, Claimant is predicted to be the one participant on the Convention. Claimant respectfully requests the Pre-Discovery Convention be continued to a date handy for the Board on March 6, 2023 or later.” The request was granted.
Prior Weblog Posts on the CCB