Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Telah Response
Telah Response
Defendants.
{07848384 / 2}
1
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00395-MGG document 187 filed 12/04/23 page 2 of 4
lawsuit” because Plaintiff has added copyrights to the case. [DE 180 at 3]. However,
Plaintiff has not added any copyrights to this case, nor can Defendant Havel point to any
pleadings showing as much. Plaintiff’s act of simply seeking copyright registrations for
works that are not involved in this case has no impact on Defendant Havel vis-à-vis the
issues of this case. Accordingly, any potential harm suffered by Defendant Havel
(Plaintiff maintains that there is absolutely no harm) is unrelated to this case and is
improperly raised as part of this litigation.
Regarding Defendant Havel’s reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, once
his conjecture and misreading of the law is disregarded, it is evident that Defendant
Havel’s arguments regarding Plaintiff’s ownership rights to the Heaven’s Gate
intellectual property are not grounded in reality. [Id. at 8–14]. Plaintiff has repeatedly
refuted Defendants’ arguments regarding ownership and have shown that its ownership
rights cannot be relitigated pursuant to principles of res judicata. [See DE 81 at 2–7]. Yet,
Defendants continue to seek overbroad discovery related to previously litigated cases and
continue to assert that they have a reasonable likelihood of success, all premised on their
misunderstanding of the relevant law. [See DE 180 at 3–4]. Simply put, Defendant Havel
has completely failed to show that he will be successful on the merits of his arguments.
Further, Defendant Havel’s Motion appears to be premised on his misconstruing
existing records at the U.S. Copyright Office. For example, the Copyright Office
inadvertently omitted a portion of Plaintiff’s name in its most recent registration. This
omission was brought to the Copyright Office’s attention and has since been corrected.
Yet, according to Defendant Havel, this is an example of Plaintiff “trying to hide behind
the corporate veil” by removing the word ‘Level’ from its name. [DE 180 at 6]. Again,
once Defendant Havel’s conjecture is removed, there is nothing really left.
Despite the above, Plaintiff would agree to delay applying for any new copyright
or trademark registrations until this lawsuit is resolved, provided that there are no
{07848384 / 2}
2
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00395-MGG document 187 filed 12/04/23 page 3 of 4
extensions to the existing Scheduling Order. Plaintiff would agree to the above in the
spirit of cooperation and in an effort to arrive at a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination” of this proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. By agreeing to delay its intellectual
property filings, Plaintiff in no way waives any of its rights or defenses.
CONCLUSION
If the Court keeps the existing Scheduling Order [DE 117], then Plaintiff will
agree to delay applying for any new copyright or trademark registrations until this lawsuit
is resolved, thereby mooting Defendant Havel’s request for entry of a preliminary
injunction. Should the Court grant Defendants request to extend the discovery deadlines,
then Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant Havel’s Motion be denied for failing to
meet the required showing for injunctive relief.
{07848384 / 2}
3
USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00395-MGG document 187 filed 12/04/23 page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 4th of December 2023, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of the filing to the parties listed below. A copy of this filing will also be
sent via U.S. mail and email.
{07848384 / 2}