Copyright Claims Board (CCB) Default Notices (Guest Blog Post–Part 2 of 3)

March 23, 2023 · by · in Copyright

by guest 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 nine first default notices. These all have to do with the respondent not registering for the eCCB — the online means that the system communicates — or not responding to the claim.   

Process

Claims must pass through the compliance stage before service of process is allowed.  The complainant must wait for 60 days to see if the respondent opts out.  Sometimes that gets extended. Then, the Order to Pay Second Filing fee and register for the eCCB occurs after the opt-out period has ended without an opt-out. The Claimant pays $60, and the respondent is supposed to sign-up with the eCCB. Sometimes the respondent is a bit slow. In Sedlik v. Culinary Investments, LLC, et al, the respondent failed to register for the eCCB.  

Claim Response

Sometimes the first default is because the respondent has not filed the response to the claim, as required by the Scheduling Order. This happened in Flores v. Mitrakos, 22-CCB-0035, and within six days, the respondent had filed the response. (Part 3 will discuss the Flores case in more detail).  

No Response (after being served)

What happens if the respondent fails to respond to the eCCB requirement after the opt-out period has run out and after service?  Default determination.  The documents from Corjulo v. Mandrell, 22-CCB-0008, gives us a little insight into this. Here is the next step: “The Board orders the claimant to submit written direct testimony in support of a default determination. 37 C.F.R. § 227.2(a). Written direct testimony consists of:  a party statement describing the claimant’s position on the claims; claimant’s evidence; and optional witness statements.”  

This also occurred in Hursey v. Lavaca LLC, 22-CCB-0056. The respondent did not comply with the scheduling order, and got a first default notice, then a second default notice, and then Order to Submit Default Direct Party Statement.  Both of these cases are still in process, so we do not have the claimant response or the CCB’s final determination yet. 

The others–Sedlik v. Culinary Investments, LLC,  22-CCB-0004, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Fusion Groups, Inc., et al, 22-CCB-0067, Hursey v. Quinney, 22-CCB-0163, Bronner v. EssayZoo, 22-CCB-0012, and Oaks v. Heart of Gold Pageant System Inc., et al, 22-CCB-0046–are a step behind, with default notice(s) for not registering with the eCCB and/or missing the deadline for responding.     

Will the CCB reschedule a conference because of a vacation if requested? Yes!

In Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Arif Skyline Cafe LLC, et al., 22-CCB-0098, the claimant asked for the conference to be rescheduled because of a pre-paid vacation.  The respondent had not registered for the eCCB, and received a second notice to register, and the first default notice for not registering for the eCCB and not filing a response. The claimant then asked for a change in the schedule: “Counsel for Claimant has a pre-paid family vacation scheduled for March 1-5, 2023, and will not have access to a computer or Zoom at the time currently scheduled for the Pre-Discovery Conference.  As the Respondents have not yet appeared, Claimant is expected to be the only participant at the Conference.  Claimant respectfully requests the Pre-Discovery Conference be continued to a date convenient for the Board on March 6, 2023 or later.” The request was granted.

Prior Blog Posts on the CCB