A federal judge on Friday rejected Warner Bros. Discovery's attempt to have a trademark infringement suit against its HGTV network tossed. Judge Richard Andrews of the U.S. District Court for Delaware denied the company's motion for summary judgment (docket 1:22-cv-01583). He also denied a summary judgment motion by plaintiff HomeVestors of America seeking dismissal of Warner Bros.' First Amendment defense and its defense under the legal Rogers test, which weighs trademark rights versus First Amendment protections. HomeVestors, a home-buying company, sued Warner Bros. over HGTV's Ugliest House in America show, claiming it violated HomeVestors' trademarks for "We Buy Ugly Houses," "the Ugliest House of the Year" and "Ugly House?" The trial is set to begin Aug. 25.

The studios suing Midjourney "cannot have it both ways," trying to profit from the use of Midjourney's AI tools while accusing it of wrongdoing, the company told a federal court last week. Disney and Universal are suing Midjourney for direct and secondary copyright infringement over use of the generative AI service to create unauthorized copies of the studios' content (see 2506110043). In an answer to the complaint alleging direct and secondary copyright infringement, Midjourney said training a generative AI model by lifting statistical information embedded in copyrighted works "is a quintessentially transformative fair use." Its AI platform is for user expression, and there's no way it can know if a particular image is infringing, short of receiving notice from a copyright owner and information about how the image is being used. There are numerous non-infringing grounds for creating images that use characters claimed by the studios, such as noncommercial fan art and criticism, Midjourney said. "Plaintiffs seek to stifle them all."

A federal court has approved a joint motion by Altice USA and the music labels suing it that the case be stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding similar litigation against Cox Communications (see 2507140027). The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered the stay Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-00576). Both cases involve contributory liability for music piracy by the ISPs' broadband subscribers.

Altice USA and a set of music labels suing it are jointly asking a federal court to pause the looming trial pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on music label litigation against Cox Communications. In a joint motion filed Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00576) with the U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas, the labels and Altice said SCOTUS' Cox decision "will address and could alter the legal standards for key issues" in their case. Those include contributory infringement for an ISP and willful infringement, they said.

The U.S. District Court for Western Washington on Tuesday granted Dish Network's request for a default judgment against data center operator Virtual Systems (docket 2:24-cv-01683). Dish sued Virtual Systems in 2024, alleging that it supported multiple video pirate streaming sites (see 2507010001).

Dish Network is asking a federal court for a default decision against a data center operator that allegedly supports multiple video pirate streaming sites. Dish told the U.S. District Court for Western Washington on Monday (docket 2:24-cv-01683) that Virtual Systems has failed to plead or otherwise defend itself in litigation filed in October (see 2410180030).

The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would hear Cox Communications' challenge of a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding willful contributor copyright infringement. Cox filed a cert petition in August (docket 24-171) over the 4th Circuit upholding a lower court's copyright infringement finding against Cox for the piracy of some of its internet subscribers (see 2408160034). Cox argued there was now a circuit court split over willfulness standards in secondary-infringement cases. The cert petition had been challenged by music label plaintiffs in the original litigation (see 2410160045).

Midjourney's generative AI service is "a virtual vending machine, generating endless unauthorized copies of Disney’s and Universal’s copyrighted works," the studios told a federal court Wednesday in a complaint alleging direct and secondary copyright infringement. The suit, filed with the U.S. District Court for Central California (docket 2:25-cv-05275), called Midjourney "the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism." The plaintiffs said they have asked Midjourney to adopt the same technological measures that other AI services have to prevent generation of infringing material. Instead, they said, Midjourney's forthcoming commercial AI video service apparently "will generate, publicly display, and distribute videos featuring Disney’s and Universal’s copyrighted characters." The suit asks for unspecified damages and an injunction stopping Midjourney from copyright infringement or offering its image or video services "without appropriate copyright protection measures to prevent such infringement." Midjourney didn't comment.

The U.S. siding with Cox Communications in the ISP's cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2505280001) "is bewildering," music label respondents said in a supplemental brief Tuesday (docket 24-171). They said the government's brief makes it sound as if the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an ISP can be "contributorily liable" for copyright violations by having a less-than-foolproof policy of policing subscribers' infringement. Cox was found liable for taking no meaningful steps at all, the music labels noted. The government is urging the court to back an ISP that could have avoided liability "but instead chose to look the other way." They said vicarious liability is the only area where there's a circuit court split, and SCOTUS shouldn't grant cert "just to second-guess" the 4th Circuit on contributory liability.

Frontier Communications settled with music label plaintiffs that sued over Frontier's role in music piracy by its subscribers (see 2108110011). The notice of settlement (docket 1:21-cv-5050), filed Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for Southern New York, didn't give details but said the parties agreed that the 2021 suit was to be dismissed with prejudice, with each side paying its own fees and costs.