Booker Huffman’s lawsuit against Activision will be going before a jury according to a recent court order which sided with the Hall of Fame wrestler over his “GI Bro” character.
Huffman sued Activision, Major League Gaming and Treyarch Corp. for the use of his character in Call of Duty.
The Defendants moved to strike a jury demand, which is a request for a jury to hear the case. Instead, the judge would be the one deciding the verdict (sometimes known as a bench trial). The Court sided with Booker T in his demand for a jury to hear the case and decide his fate.
Memo and Opinion 06.08.21 J… by MMA Payout
Defendants attempted to strike down Huffman’s request for a jury (a prerequisite to receive citizens to hear your case) citing that his claims for relief showed no constitutional right to a jury trial as Huffman requested the “infringer’s profits” as part of his claim. Essentially this request would mean that any money made by Activision, et al. over the use of the “GI Bro” gimmick, Huffman could obtain. As you can imagine, this would be a cumbersome task. Defendants argued that a jury would not be the proper individuals to make the decision.
The issue comes down to a legal technicality regarding the relief requested by the plaintiff in a copyright infringement lawsuit and the constitutional right to a jury trial. Defendants argue that under the federal statute for copyright law, there is no right to a jury trial and that the request by Huffman is one of equitable relief rather than legal relief.
The decision by the Court was dependent on one case cited by Defendants but the Court was not impressed with its interpretation and analysis of the case. Moreover, it believed that the case did not come to the right conclusion when deciding.
In summation, the Court determined that “infringer’s profits” are legal money damages. Thus, Defendant’s argument that Huffman requesting the profits of the alleged infringer was technical and not an equitable remedy which only a judge may determine.
Payout Perspective:
The attempt by Activision, et al. to strike the jury demand by Booker T was an effort to narrow the potential issues that may arise at trial. Jurors are subjective and may not decide a case based on the presentation, but by whether or not they like an individual. Having a judge as the sole trier of fact would give Activision a better chance of winning as the Court would assess the case in a more technical way than jurors. One might also assume that Activision’s research showed that jurors in that district favor plaintiffs than defendants. MPO will continue to follow this case as it starts to heat up.
Leave a Reply