suggested that Zen Path sought protection of the industrial design of the furniture. Second, the
applications contained internal contradictions that the court did not elaborate.^2943
(xii) Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. OzimalsIn Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals, Inc.^2944 the court denied a TRO and
preliminary injunction barring Linden Research, operator of Second Life, from removing the
plaintiff’s virtual animal products from its site as a result of takedown notices issued by the
defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the notices violated Section 512(f). The court found that
the plaintiff had shown insufficient likelihood of success on the merits to support its Section
512(f) claim because the only similarity between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s virtual
animals was the idea that they each required “food” to “live.”^2945
(xiii) Shropshire v. CanningIn Shropshire v. Canning,^2946 the plaintiff, owner of the musical composition “Grandma
Got Run Over By A Reindeer,” issued a takedown notice to YouTube to remove a video posted
by the defendant containing pictures of reindeer with audio of a group called the “Irish Rovers”
singing the plaintiff’s composition. YouTube removed the video, the defendant then filed a
counter-notice, stating that he believed the video constituted fair use of the composition, and
YouTube restored the video. The plaintiff asserted a claim that the counter-notice was false
under Section 512(f) and the defendant made a motion to dismiss.^2947
The court granted the motion. The court noted in passing that under Lenz v. Universal
Music Corp.,^2948 a complainant filing a takedown notice must evaluate whether the material
made fair use of the copyright. But in this instance, the Section 512(f) claim was being brought
by the original complainant against the filer of a counter-notice. In any event, the court found
the plaintiff had failed to identify a specific misrepresentation in the defendant’s counter-notice.
Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend the plaintiff’s
complaint to identify a specific misrepresentation in the counter-notice and explain how that
misrepresentation caused the plaintiff injury.^2949
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and the defendant again moved to dismiss. This
time, the court granted the defendant’s motion in part and denied it in part. The court denied the
motion in part because the plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to show that the defendant did not
have a good faith belief that the video was removed due to mistake or misidentification, as
(^2943) Id. at 8-10.
(^2944) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141242 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010).
(^2945) Id. at 2-7.
(^2946) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4025 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2011).
(^2947) Id. at 1-4.
(^2948) 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
(^2949) Shropshire, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4025 at *17-18.