Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D entered into a contract with P to sponsor P's production of an extreme-kayaking film entitled 'PaddleQuest.' D paid P a $ 25,000 fee and provided assistance in promoting and showing the film. In return, D received an exclusive one-year license to use the film in its promotional materials, and the D logo was featured prominently on the film's packaging and posters, as well as on equipment used in the film itself. The 'PaddleQuest' promotion was 'an unqualified success.' D enjoyed its association with 'PaddleQuest' so much that it continued to use images from the film in its promotion of the Expedition line of watches after the license expired. D used 'PaddleQuest' materials at twelve different trade shows between 1995 and 1998. These materials included a ten-minute promotional 'loop tape' -- so named because it is shown continuously -- displayed at D's presentation booth at the trade shows. Under the license agreement, D had the option of retaining Polar Bear to produce such a video at a price to be determined by the parties. D instead notified P that it planned to produce the tape separately. P warned D that it had no right to use images from 'PaddleQuest' without permission, and d agreed not to produce the tape. Without Polar Bear's knowledge or permission, D proceeded to create the video, one-third of which consisted of images from 'Paddle-Quest.' P learned of the infringement approximately two years later when the producer of 'PaddleQuest,' witnessed the D-produced loop tape playing continuously at a trade show. At the same trade show, P also witnessed D showing 'PaddleQuest' in its entirety at its display booth as part of the watchmaker's promotional efforts. D also used copyrighted images on two other occasions -- in a promotional campaign associated with the soft drink Mountain Dew and in videos used to train salespeople at a large national retailer. P expressly denied D permission to use the images, and D deleted any reference to P's copyright. D does not dispute that it used the copyrighted images without permission and beyond the period of time allowed by the license. P sued for copyright and trademark infringement. Considering only the copyright and breach of contract claims, the first jury returned a verdict for P with compensatory damages totaling $2.1 million. The district court vacated the verdict and ordered a new trial on the grounds that P violated certain pretrial evidentiary rulings. The second trial was limited to the issue of damages for copyright violations. The second jury returned a verdict of $2,415,00.00 -- $315,000 in actual damages and $2.1 million in indirect profits related to D's infringements. Everyone appealed. D asserts that recovery for damages should be limited to instances of infringement occurring within three years of the commencement of the lawsuit. D argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury award and that the district court erroneously admitted the testimony of P's expert witness.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.