Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CIVIL ACTION NO.

TELEVISION ARTS AND SCIENCES,
INC. and ACADEMY OF TELEVISION
ARTS & SCIENCES, COMPLAINT FOR
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT,
Plaintiffs, TRADEMARK DILUTION,
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT,
v. AND LIBEL

MULTIMEDIA SYSTEM DESIGN, INC.

d/b/a “CROWDSOURCE THE TRUTH”, JURY TRIAL WAIVED

Defendant.

Plaintiffs, The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Inc. (“NATAS”) and

Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (“ATAS”) (collectively, the “Television Academies”),

by their undersigned attorneys, allege as follows, upon actual knowledge with respect to

themselves and their own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action for copyright infringement, trademark dilution, trademark

infringement, and libel under federal, state, and/or common law.

2. For more than 70 years, the Television Academies have conferred the famous

EMMY Award in recognition of excellence and achievement in television programming. Since

the EMMY Award was first presented in 1949, it has only grown in stature and fame. Today the

EMMY Award is the most famous television entertainment accolade in the world.

3. Since 1949, the EMMY Award has been conferred in the form of the iconic

EMMY Statuette, which is symbolic of, and synonymous with, the famous EMMY Award.

1
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 20

4. During the unprecedented “COVID-19” pandemic, Defendant created, published,

and disseminated an image of the EMMY Statuette with an image of a SARS-CoV-2 virus

created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). In doing so, Defendant

infringed the Television Academies’ copyrights, and diluted and infringed their trademark rights,

all to advertise and promote Defendant’s “Crony Awards” show. And when the Television

Academies served a lawful DMCA copyright takedown notice asking YouTube to remove

Defendant’s infringement, Defendant retaliated by spreading damaging falsehoods about the

Emmy Awards, the Television Academies, and NATAS President Adam Sharp, which constitute

libel.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff, The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Inc., is a New

York not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 450 Park Avenue South,

Third Floor, New York, New York 10016.

6. Plaintiff, Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, is a California not-for-profit

corporation with its principal place of business at 5220 Lankershim Boulevard, North

Hollywood, California 91601.

7. Defendant Multimedia System Design, Inc. d/b/a Crowdsource the Truth is a New

York corporation with places of business at 505 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10018 and

252 7th Avenue Apartment No. 6S, New York, NY 10001, and an address designated for service

of process at 208 East 51st Street, Suite 200, New York, New York 10022.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and (b). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has

2
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 3 of 20

supplemental jurisdiction over the Television Academies’ state law claims because those claims

are substantially related to the Television Academies’ federal Copyright Act and Lanham Act

claims.

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and venue is proper in the

Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a)

because the Television Academies are being harmed in this District; Defendant is domiciled in

this District; Defendant’s agent can be found in this District; Defendant is conducting business in

this District; and Defendant is violating the Television Academies’ rights in this District.

THE EMMY STATUETTE

10. The Television Academies have long used their famous EMMY Statuette to

recognize excellence in the television industry. The famous award is conferred on members of

television casts, crews, and executives for a broad range of achievements and contributions to

outstanding television programming.

11. The EMMY Statuette is a gold statuette molded in the shape of a winged figure

holding an atom (“EMMY Statuette Design”).

3
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 4 of 20

12. The coveted EMMY Statuette is featured and presented by the Television

Academies during several annual award shows:

• The Primetime EMMY Awards;

• The Daytime EMMY Awards;

• The Creative Arts EMMY Awards;

• The Technology & Engineering EMMY Awards;

• The Sports EMMY Awards; and

• The News & Documentary EMMY Awards.

13. The EMMY Statuette is featured throughout these award shows, as well as in

invitations, websites, tickets, advertisements, promotions, and of course, the statuettes conferred

on individual award winners.

14. The Primetime Emmy Award Show (which routinely features the EMMY

Statuette Design, as depicted below) exemplifies the tremendous fame and goodwill that the

EMMY Statuette Design enjoys. Due to its success, the popular Primetime EMMY Award Show

annually reaches millions through television and social media, all of which contributes to the

fame of the EMMY Statuette throughout the U.S.

Primetime Emmy Awards, 2018

4
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 5 of 20

15. For example, in 2019, FOX Network broadcast the 71st Primetime EMMY

Awards Show, drawing over 6.9 million viewers. The 2019 Primetime EMMY Awards also

received tremendous social media attention during an approximate 45-day period beginning with

the Emmy Nominations announcement in July 2019. Specifically, 67.9 million people were

reached globally across the Television Academies’ social platforms, including Facebook,

Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat with over 2,800 posts generating 4.03 million interactions. This

constitutes only a fraction of the number of social media impressions as it does not include the

volume of posts and interactions created by industry nominees and talent.

16. The Television Academies devote substantial time, effort, and resources annually

to advertising, marketing, and promoting the EMMY Statuette and EMMY Statuette Design

through virtually every type of digital and print media, such as print advertisements (e.g.,

newspapers and magazines like emmy Magazine), internet advertising, social media, billboards,

catalogs, point-of-sale displays, sponsorships, and trade shows.

17. As a result of the EMMY Statuette Design’s distinctive nature and inherent

strength, widespread use, advertising, publicity, promotion, and substantial sales, the EMMY

Statuette has been famous since long before Defendant began its unlawful acts alleged below.

18. The Television Academies co-own numerous valid and subsisting U.S. trademark

registrations and applications for their EMMY Statuette Design, as described below:

5
Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 6 of 20

Reg. No. Goods/Services

Mark
Issue Date First Use in Commerce

5934952 “Statuettes, figurines, and trophies of precious

12-17-2019 metal” in International Class 14
First use: 01-25-1949
First use in commerce: 01-25-1949

5791619 “Indicating membership in an organization that

07-02-2019 promotes the interests of, and excellence in, the
television industry, including as it relates to
entertainment and educational content” in
International Class 200
First use: 04-20-2001
First use in commerce: 04-20-2001

1649437 “Books, brochures, magazines, pamphlets,

07-02-1991 journals, award directories dealing with television
programming, award events and personalities, and,
press kits comprising printed booklets of
information on individuals and programs of award
nominees” in International Class 16
First use: 03-01-1948
First use in commerce: 03-01-1948

“Educational and entertainment services rendered

through live television programs dealing with
awards for television programming” in
International Class 41
First use: 03-01-1948
First use in commerce: 03-01-1948

6
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 7 of 20

Reg. No. Goods/Services

Mark
Issue Date First Use in Commerce

2755461 “Publications, namely, magazines, newsletters,

08-26-2003 event programs and brochures related to television
arts and sciences” in International Class 16
First use: 01-02-2000
First use in commerce: 01-02-2002

“Educational services in the nature of classes,

workshops and seminars in the field of television
history, technology, and programming; providing
an on-line computer database in the field of video
and/or audio taped interviews with television
actors, writers, producers, directors, crafts, and
executives and other people that created and
developed television technology and
programming; providing databases featuring video
and/or audio taped interviews with television
actors, writers, producers, directors, crafts, and
executives and other people that created and
developed television technology and
programming” in International Class 41
First use: 01-02-2000
First use in commerce: 01-02-2002

19. The Television Academies have continuously used the EMMY Statuette Design

as a trademark and/or service mark since at least 1949.

20. The EMMY Statuette is integral to the Television Academies’ overall corporate

identity.

21. As a result of substantial promotional efforts, the EMMY Statuette has achieved

widespread public recognition and fame well prior to Defendant’s wrongful acts alleged below.

22. The Television Academies also owns valid and subsisting U.S. Copyright Office

Registration Nos. VAu000004822, VAu000214327, VAu000498171, and VA0002206004 for

the EMMY Statuette Design (the “Registered Copyrights”).

7
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 8 of 20

23. The Television Academies protect their intellectual property rights in the EMMY

Statuette and EMMY Statuette Design through routine enforcement activities on the internet.

24. Such enforcement activities include sending copyright takedown notices to

Service Providers (e.g. social media platforms) pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c).

DEFENDANT AND ITS WRONGFUL ACTS

25. Defendant Multimedia System Design, Inc. d/b/a Crowdsource the Truth operates

a collection of social media accounts and similar distribution channels.

26. Jason Goodman is the principal of Defendant Multimedia System Design, Inc.

d/b/a Crowdsource the Truth.

27. Defendant syndicates paid content through Patreon.com and SubscribeStar.com

and advertises, markets, and promotes that content through social media accounts on YouTube,

Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

28. Mr. Goodman has described the content made available by Defendant as

“alternative information.” In fact, Defendant is a platform for conspiracy theories, including

those that deny the severity and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. See, e.g., “When Is

Coronavirus Not Coronavirus? John Cullen Reveals A Stunning Break,” at

youtube.com/watch?v=9o6F2bN6CPw.

29. On or about June 12, 2020, two weeks before the Daytime Emmy Awards Show

aired on CBS, Defendant posted its own award show—entitled “Crony Awards”—on YouTube

and other platforms. The show honored countries that refused to lock down and/or minimized

the COVID-19 pandemic.

30. To market its “Crony Awards” show via social media, Defendant, without

authorization, created and used an image (shown below) depicting the EMMY Statuette’s

8
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 9 of 20

winged figure but replacing the Statuette’s atom with a depiction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as

illustrated by the CDC (the “Infringing Image”), as shown below:

31. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Image for its “Crony Awards” impermissibly

associated the famous EMMY Statuette and the EMMY Awards with dangerous misinformation

about the COVID-19 pandemic.

32. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Image also linked the famous and venerated

EMMY Award, EMMY Statuette, and EMMY Statuette Design with the term “crony”—a term

that is routinely used to denote corruption, nepotism, and graft.

33. On Tuesday, July 28, 2020, the Infringing Image was reported to the Television

Academies as a “gross” trademark violation, citing it as “beyond disrespectful,” and made

reference to a family member that had recently passed away due to COVID-19. 1

1
All personally identifiable information for the person responsible for reporting this Infringing Image has been
redacted from this screenshot of the person’s original communication to the Television Academies. Such redactions
are meant to protect the sender’s privacy and from the kind of online bullying described below.

9
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 10 of 20

34. Upon receipt of the report of the Infringing Image, the Television Academies

promptly sent a copyright violation notice to YouTube pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) of the

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA Takedown Notice”).

35. In response and as required by the DMCA, YouTube removed the video

containing the Infringing Image.

36. On Friday, August 21, 2020, Defendant’s principal, Jason Goodman, emailed

Adam Sharp, President and Chief Executive Officer of NATAS, objecting to the DMCA

Takedown Notice and claiming NATAS had “no legitimate claim of copyright infringement”

because the Infringing Image was “parody.”

37. The next day, Mr. Goodman emailed Mr. Sharp again and asked to speak “today,”

a Saturday, leaving two voice messages on Mr. Sharp’s home telephone number (which was not

the contact information provided to YouTube in connection with the DMCA Notification) and

sending a direct message to Mr. Sharp on Twitter (also not the contact information provided to

YouTube in connection with the DMCA Notification).

38. That same day, Television Academies’ counsel emailed Mr. Goodman asking him

to stop contacting Mr. Sharp and instead await counsel’s reply, which would be provided that

10
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 11 of 20

week. Mr. Goodman responded with three emails to counsel over the weekend demanding

retraction of the DMCA Takedown Notice.

39. On Monday, August 24, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent correspondence to Mr.

Goodman rejecting his claims and explaining that the DMCA Takedown Notice was duly served;

that the Infringing Image was not “parody”; and that the association of the EMMY Statuette

Design with a pandemic, and to promote Defendant’s own award show diluted and infringed the

Television Academies’ trademark rights in the EMMY Statuette Design.

40. On Tuesday, August 25, 2020, Defendant filed a DMCA counter notification with

YouTube (the “DMCA Counter Notification”). Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(g) of the DMCA, a

Service Provider (e.g., YouTube) that removes content pursuant to a DMCA takedown notice

must replace that content within 10 to 14 days after receiving a counter notification in order to

retain its protection from copyright infringement liability as provided for by the DMCA, unless a

lawsuit is filed. Accordingly, Defendant’s DMCA Counter Notification forced the Television

Academies to file suit to prevent YouTube from reposting the infringing content.

41. Over the following four days, Defendant sent four more emails demanding

retraction of the DMCA Takedown Notice. The Television Academies worked diligently to

review Defendant’s complaints, consider its demands, and prepare a response to Defendant’s

settlement demands. At the same time Defendant waged a social media smear campaign against

the Television Academies and Mr. Sharp.

42. Specifically, between Monday, August 23, 2020 and Monday, August 30, 2020,

Defendant (using the Twitter handle @csthetruth) posted on Twitter using Mr. Sharp’s Twitter

handle, @AdamS, or replied to Tweets from Mr. Sharp’s account (none of which had anything to

do with Defendant) at least eleven (11) times, including Tweets falsely accusing Mr. Sharp of

11
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 12 of 20

being a “political operative” and falsely claiming that Mr. Sharp is abusing the DMCA takedown

process to stifle “competition from real news.” By using Mr. Sharp’s handle, Defendant

expressly and intentionally targeted Mr. Sharp publicly and personally.

43. Defendant also posted YouTube videos that spread falsehoods about Mr. Sharp

and his father (noted journalist Roger Sharp) alleging that their professional careers were the

products of nepotism, corruption, and CIA-led propaganda campaigns. See, e.g.,

youtube.com/watch?v=3heNmyUlZj8 at 1:23:52 to 1:27:31 (falsely implying that Adam Sharp’s

father, Roger Sharp, spread propaganda on CBS and in exchange his son, Adam Sharp, could

one day “run the Emmys.”)

44. The Television Academies tried to resolve this matter without litigation, but once

Defendant filed the DMCA Counter Notification and refused to withdraw it, the Television

Academies had no choice but to file this lawsuit to enforce their rights under the DMCA and

otherwise seek relief through this action.

45. Despite the harm to the Television Academies caused by Defendant, the

Television Academies currently seek only injunctive relief to stop Defendant from further

violating the Television Academies’ rights.

INJURY TO THE PUBLIC AND THE TELEVISION ACADEMIES

46. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Image is likely to cause dilution of the

Television Academies’ famous EMMY Statuette Design and tarnish that famous mark by

associating the famous EMMY Statuette Design with the COVID-19 pandemic and the

derogatory term “crony” as part of Defendant’s “Crony Awards.”

47. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Image is likely to cause dilution of the

Television Academies’ famous EMMY Statuette Design and blur the distinctiveness of that

12
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 13 of 20

famous mark by exploiting the famous EMMY Statuette Design to promote Defendant’s “Crony

Awards” show, detracting from the strength of the famous EMMY Statuette Design as an

indicator of source for the Television Academies.

48. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Image is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and

deception as to the source or origin of the Television Academies’ products and services, and is

likely to falsely suggest a sponsorship, connection, or association between Defendant, its

products, its services, and/or its commercial activities with the Television Academies and/or their

corporate identity.

49. Defendant’s unauthorized use of the Infringing Image has damaged and

irreparably injured and, if permitted to continue, will further damage and irreparably injure the

Television Academies, their reputation and goodwill, the EMMY Statuette Design, the

Television Academies’ corporate identity, and the public’s interest in being free from confusion.

50. Defendant knew, or should have known, that its use of the Infringing Image

violates the Television Academies’ rights in the EMMY Statuette Design. As a result, Defendant

has acted knowingly, willfully, in reckless disregard of the Television Academies’ rights, and in

bad faith.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Copyright Infringement Under
17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

51. The Television Academies repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.

52. The Television Academies own valid and subsisting copyright registrations in the

EMMY Statuette Design, namely, the Registered Copyrights.

13
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 14 of 20

53. The Television Academies have not authorized Defendant or its employees,

personnel, principals, or affiliates to use, copy, display, distribute, manipulate, or create

derivative works from the EMMY Statuette Design.

54. Defendant has directly infringed the Television Academies’ Registered

Copyrights by reproducing, distributing, displaying, and creating derivative works from its

EMMY Statuette Design, including but not limited to through Defendant’s creation and

dissemination of the Infringing Image.

55. Defendant’s creation and dissemination of the Infringing Image was not parody

because it bore no message whatsoever about the EMMY Statuette Design, the Emmy Awards,

or the Television Academies, nor did it seek to offer commentary or criticism about any of them.

56. Defendant’s creation and dissemination of the Infringing Image was not fair use at

least because (a) Defendant used the Infringing Image for an award show, i.e., the same purpose

for which the EMMY Statuette Design is used, and is not ‘transformative,’ (b) Defendant’s use

of the Infringing Image was commercial in nature; and (c) Defendant’s use of the Infringing

Image may have a significant negative impact on the Television Academies’ ability to

commercialize the EMMY Statuette and EMMY Statuette Design.

57. Defendant’s infringement was willful and intentional.

58. The Television Academies have suffered actual harm and reputational harm and

incurred significant costs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s direct infringement of

the EMMY Statuette Design.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Trademark Dilution Under
Section 43(c) of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)

59. The Television Academies repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.

14
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 15 of 20

60. The EMMY Statuette Design is famous, as the term “famous” is used in 15

U.S.C. § 1125(c), and was famous prior to Defendant’s first use of the Infringing Image, based

on, among other things, multiple federal registrations of the Television Academies’ EMMY

Statuette Design (two of which are incontestable), and the extensive nationwide use, advertising,

promotion, and recognition of the EMMY Statuette Design.

61. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Image, as described above, is likely to tarnish

the reputation of the famous EMMY Statuette Design.

62. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Image, as described above, is likely to blur the

distinctiveness of the famous EMMY Statuette Design.

63. Defendant’s actions, as described above, are likely to dilute the distinctive quality

of the Television Academies’ famous EMMY Statuette Design in violation of Section 43(c) of

the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), as amended by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of

2006.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Trademark Infringement Under
Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)

64. The Television Academies repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.

65. Without the Television Academies’ consent, Defendant used and continues to use

in commerce reproductions, copies, and colorable imitations of the Infringing Image in a manner

which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, in violation of Section

32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Trademark Infringement, False Designation
of Origin, Passing Off, and Unfair Competition
Under Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)

66. The Television Academies repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.

15
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 16 of 20

67. Defendant’s use of the Infringing Image, as described above, is likely to cause

confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of

Defendant, its products and services, and/or its commercial activities by or with the Television

Academies, their EMMY Statuette Design, and the Television Academies’ corporate identity,

and thus constitute trademark infringement, false designation of origin, passing off, and unfair

competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Trademark Infringement Under New York Common Law

68. The Television Academies repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.

69. Defendant’s actions described above create the impression in the mind of the

public that the Television Academies are responsible for the quality and performance of

Defendant’s products/services or are otherwise affiliated, connected, or associated with

Defendants, their products/services, and/or their commercial activities and thus Defendant’s acts

constitute common-law trademark infringement of the Television Academies’ proprietary rights

in its EMMY Statuette Design and misappropriation of the Television Academies’ goodwill in

the EMMY Statuette Design, as provided for in N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-o.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Trademark Dilution Under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-l

70. The Television Academies repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.

71. The EMMY Statuette Design is distinctive because it is arbitrary and/or fanciful

as applied to the Television Academies’ products and/or services.

72. The EMMY Statuette Design is famous.

73. The EMMY Statuette Design is an extremely strong mark.

16
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 17 of 20

74. Defendant’s unauthorized use of the Infringing Image dilutes the strength of the

EMMY Statuette Design, resulting in damage to the Television Academies and the substantial

business and goodwill symbolized by the EMMY Statuette Design in violation of New York

General Business Law § 360-l.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Libel Per Se and/or Libel Per Quod Under New York Common Law

75. The Television Academies repeat and reallege every allegation set forth above.

76. Defendant recorded and published videos and internet posts that make the

following false and defamatory statements (“Defamatory Statements”) about the Television

Academies, the Emmy Awards, and NATAS President Adam Sharp, including for example:

a. The Television Academies’ DMCA Takedown Notice was malicious rather than

intended to protect its copyright in the EMMY Statuette Design;

b. Mr. Sharp is involved in a CIA propaganda operation and is “a foot soldier in the

modern incarnation of #OperationMockingbird,” an alleged conspiracy by the

CIA to control people’s minds using torture and psychoactive drugs and related

murder allegations;

c. Mr. Sharp is abusing his position as President of NATAS by carrying out

Democratic Party objectives as a “partisan political operative”;

d. Mr. Sharp became the President of NATAS as a result of nepotism through his

father’s involvement with a CIA propaganda operation;

77. These false statements were published through social media.

78. These Defamatory Statements were published with malice.

79. Defendant acted with malice in an effort to gain an unfair advantage over the

Television Academies and coerce them to withdraw a lawful DMCA Takedown Notice.

17
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 18 of 20

80. The Television Academies have been damaged by Defendant’s Defamatory

Statements because they injure the Television Academies’ reputation for objectivity, impartiality,

and merit-based consideration and commendation of excellence in television programming.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Television Academies request that this Court enter judgment in its

favor on each and every claim for relief set forth above and award them relief including, but not

limited to, the following:

A. An Order declaring that Defendant’s use of the Infringing Image infringes and

dilutes the Television Academies’ rights in its EMMY Statuette Design and constitutes copyright

infringement, trademark dilution, trademark infringement, and unfair competition under federal

and/or state law, as detailed above.

B. An Order declaring that Defendant’s publication of the Defamatory Statements

constitute libel per se and/or libel per quod (as appropriate) in violation of New York common

law, as detailed above.

C. An Order enjoining Defendant and its employees, agents, partners, officers,

directors, owners, shareholders, principals, subsidiaries, related companies, affiliates,

distributors, dealers, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them:

1. From using or registering the Infringing Image and/or any other confusingly

similar marks, logos, designs, source identifiers, or designations in any manner

likely to cause dilution or confusion with the EMMY Statuette Design or

otherwise injure the Television Academies or their reputation;

18
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 19 of 20

2. From reproducing, displaying, publishing, distributing, disseminating, or

creating unauthorized derivative works from the Television Academies’

Registered Copyrights;

3. From representing by any means whatsoever, directly or indirectly, that any

products or services offered by Defendant, or any activities undertaken by

Defendant, are associated or connected in any way with the Television Academies

or sponsored or authorized by or affiliated with the Television Academies; and

4. From assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or entity in engaging in

or performing any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs C(1), C(2), and

C(3) above.

D. An Order directing Defendant to immediately delete or destroy all products,

advertisements, promotional materials, stationery, forms, videos, “tweets,” social media posts,

and/or any other materials and things that contain or bear the Infringing Image and/or any other

marks, logos, designs, source identifiers, designations and/or defamatory content that is likely to

cause confusion with the Television Academies’ EMMY Statuette Design and/or injures the

Television Academies or their reputation.

E. An Order pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503 for the impounding and/or destruction of

all materials used in the violation of the Television Academies’ Registered Copyrights and any

other articles by means of which such copies may be reproduced.

F. An Order directing Defendant to remove all publications of the Defamatory

Statements and any other defamatory statements against Television Academies personnel and/or

their families, including but not limited to Adam Sharp and his father.

19
 Case 1:20-cv-07269 Document 1 Filed 09/04/20 Page 20 of 20

G. An Order directing Defendant to, within thirty (30) days after the entry of the

injunction, file with this Court and serve on Television Academies’ attorneys a report in writing

and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendant has complied with

the injunction.

H. Any further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

Dated: September 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Samuel V. Eichner

Samuel V. Eichner (SDNY Bar No. SE1967)
[email protected]
Margaret Esquenet (pro hac vice to be filed)
[email protected]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
901 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 408-4000
Facsimile: (202) 408-4400

Attorneys for the Television Academies

20