512(f) Claim Over Counternotice Survives Motion to Dismiss–Handshoe v. Perret

[Oops, this post got stuck in my draft folder. Better late than never.] Whew, this case will never end. I’ve blogged it a few times over the years, including a ruling not that long ago. It’s showing up again on the blog because a 512(f) claim survived a motion to dismiss. Even more unusually, the 512(f) claim is based on a counternotice, not a takedown notice. I’m sure I’m forgetting something, but I can’t recall a 512(f) case over a counternotice that’s gotten this far. The underlying dispute relates to files, posted by Handshoe, that allegedly infringe Leary’s Canadian copyrights. Leary sent takedown notices on the files. Handshoe counternoticed. Leary now claims the counternotices were bogus. The court summarizes: Leary’s § 512(f) claims against Handshoe involve two instances in which Handshoe allegedly submitted counternotifications, one to YouTube on July 14, 2014, and another to AWS in late January 2016. Leary alleges…

Read more detail on Recent Legal Marketing posts –

This entry was posted in Legal Marketing and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply