Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03434/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03434-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TELUS Corporation, a Canadian

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v

DENNIS WATSON,

Defendant. /

No C 07-3434 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff TELUS Corporation alleges that defendant

obtained certain videos in which plaintiff owned the copyright

under Canadian law. Plaintiff alleges that defendant posted those

videos on YouTube without permission. Defendant filed a short

motion to dismiss arguing that because all the parties to this

lawsuit are Canadian and have no connection to the United States,

the court should dismiss for improper venue. The court interprets

defendant’s submission as a motion to dismiss on the ground of

forum non conveniens.

Plaintiff is a Canadian corporation with its principal

place of business in British Columbia. Doc #1 at ¶1. Defendant is

an individual residing in British Columbia and representing himself

Case 3:07-cv-03434-VRW Document 32 Filed 08/08/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

in this litigation. Doc #1 at ¶2. Plaintiff alleges that

defendant obtained videos of plaintiff’s sales promotional events

and other internal speeches and presentations. Doc #1 at ¶¶10, 17. 

Plaintiff alleges that it owns the copyrights in those videos under

Canadian copyright law. Doc #1 at ¶¶8, 11-12, 17-18; Doc #26 at 2

n1. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, without plaintiff’s consent,

uploaded to YouTube excerpts of the copyrighted videos. Doc #1 at

¶¶13-15, 19-21. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant posted other

videos which were not themselves copyrighted but which contained

copyrighted photographs and images of plaintiff’s “officers,

representatives and employees.” Doc #1 at ¶¶23, 26-27. Plaintiff

alleges that defendant’s video postings (approximately ten in all,

see Doc #27 Exh C) infringe plaintiff’s copyrights in violation of

17 USC § 101 et seq.

Once plaintiff learned of defendant’s YouTube postings,

plaintiff initiated the takedown process laid out in the Digital

Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 USC § 512(c). On June 1,

2007, plaintiff notified YouTube that twenty-six of defendant’s

posted videos infringed plaintiff’s copyrights. Doc #27 Exh A. 

YouTube disabled access to those videos. On June 2, 2007,

defendant sent YouTube a counternotice under 17 USC § 512(g)

demanding that YouTube restore access to the videos. Defendant’s

counternotice addressed twenty-three of the videos and asserted

that plaintiff did not own copyrights in those videos. Doc #27 Exh

B. Defendant claims he never posted the three remaining videos. 

Doc #29 at ¶14.

Hence, the sole connection to the United States and the

Northern District of California of this dispute between these

Case 3:07-cv-03434-VRW Document 32 Filed 08/08/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Canadian parties over Canadian materials appears to have occurred

when the posting, take down notice and counternotice touched down

at YouTube’s server in San Bruno, California. It seems under the

circumstances that the dispute should bounce back to Canada. 

In addition to this, the complaint’s allegations of a

Canadian copyright are sketchy at best, leading to a question

whether plaintiff has alleged a claim upon which relief may be

granted. As the court need not reach this issue and any

jurisdictional issues if this court is an inconvenient forum, the

court requests plaintiff to address the forum non conveniens issue

first. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in

writing not later than September 11, 2008, why this action should

not be dismissed for forum non conveniens; defendant may file a

reply no later than September 25, 2008, at which time the matter

will stand submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03434-VRW Document 32 Filed 08/08/08 Page 3 of 3