COMPLAINT Page 1 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049 

email: crowell@kite.com 

CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923 

Salem, OR 97308 

(503) 581-1240 

Of attorneys for plaintiffs 

VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOE NO. 1, 

(IP 98.246.58.231) 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 6:14-cv-00812-MC

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

ORS 647.105 – State Trademark 

Equitable Relief Only 

In its First Amended Complaint, Voltage Pictures, LLC, alleges: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This is a suit for trademark infringement under ORS 647.105. 

2. Jurisdiction in Oregon is proper as based pre-filing investigations it is believed that the 

defendant resides in Marion County, Oregon. 

PARTIES 

THE PLAINTIFF 

3. Plaintiff Voltage Pictures, LLC (“Voltage” / “Plaintiff”) is a limited liability company 

with principal offices in Los Angeles, California that produces, markets and distributes motion 

pictures including the motion picture titled Dallas Buyers Club. 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 2 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

The Rights of the Plaintiff 

4. Dallas Buyers Club is an acclaimed motion picture nominated for six Academy Awards 

(Oscars), winning Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Best Makeup. The motion picture also 

won numerous Screen Actors Guild Awards, Golden Globes and other awards. 

5. In the marketing of the motion picture, plaintiff has branded the motion picture with its 

distinctive and registered trademark, VOLTAGE PICTURES, which identifies the motion 

picture as being associated with plaintiff. 

6. Plaintiff has sole and exclusive rights to use the mark VOLTAGE PICTURES in 

association with its goods and services both within the State of Oregon and nationwide. 

7. The VOLTAGE PICTURES mark is unique, distinctive, and clearly visible prior to and 

following the presentation the motion picture. 

8. The VOLTAGE PICTURES mark is valuable, well known and famous as it is associated 

with numerous award winning motion pictures in addition to Dallas Buyers Club. 

9. The mark VOLTAGE PICTURES has been registered with the State of Oregon pursuant 

to ORS 647.015, Registry Number 42677. 

10. Pursuant to ORS 647.095, a person who without the consent of Voltage Pictures, uses the 

VOLTAGE PICTURES mark in connection with the distribution of a reproduction or counterfeit 

product is liable for the equitable remedies provided in ORS 647.105. 

11. Pursuant to ORS 647.105, “The owner of a mark registered under this chapter may 

proceed in a civil action to seek an injunction against the ... use, display or sale of a counterfeit 

or imitation of the mark.” 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 2 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 3 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

12. Plaintiff comes to this court seeking the equitable remedies provided by ORS Chapter 

647, namely an injunction against those who without authorization reproduce and distribute its 

registered trademark. 

DEFENDANT

13. Defendant is a participant in a peer-to-peer file sharing network. 

14. The defendant has been identified as “Doe No. 1” in the instant case is a party who has 

used the internet protocol (“IP”) address 98.246.58.231 at 3/1/14, 03:20:44 AM UTC to 

reproduce and distribute the motion picture Dallas Buyers Club marked with plaintiff’s 

registered trademark without authorization. 

15. The defendant has improperly and without authorization from plaintiff downloaded, 

shared and uploaded content marked with plaintiff’s registered trademark using a peer-to-peer 

network. 

16. The defendant has infringed plaintiff’s state trademark rights. 

17. The defendant’s conduct is more specifically described below. 

BACKGROUND 

18. In the production of a motion picture there are countless expenses and labors, many of 

which are not evident in the final product, including writers, staff persons, construction workers 

and others. 

19. Indeed, the final product produced, which may be less than two hours long is often 

sourced from countless hours of preparation, filming, post-production and promotion to bring the 

final product to viewers. 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 3 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 4 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

20. The end product that many consumers see is a few hours in a theater or a DVD product 

that once production is complete has a nominal cost on a per-viewing experience. However, this 

is misleading as the costs to view a completed motion picture or produce a single DVD are 

nominal compared to what is often years of work by many of people leading up to the end 

product. 

21. Added to this is that people seen related to the end product, movie stars, directors and 

other persons of note, are generally perceived as highly compensated. This leads to the common 

misunderstanding that people involved in motion pictures are already wealthy. 

22. When the perception is that those affiliated with a motion picture are already wealthy and 

the end product, such as a DVD, costs little to make, a reality disconnect often builds in the 

minds of much of the public, namely that those associated with a motion picture do not need any 

more money. 

23. When this reality disconnect meets with the ready availability of pirated copies of motion 

pictures and the ease with which they can be pirated and downloaded at an almost anonymous 

level, many people feel justified in their pirating or theft. 

24. The result is that despite the industry’s efforts to capitalize on internet technology and 

reduce costs to end viewers through legitimate and legal means of online viewing options such as 

NetflixTM, HuluTM, and Amazon PrimeTM, there are still those that use technology to replicate 

and steal content and undermine the efforts of creators through piracy and unauthorized 

distribution of content. 

25. As noted by Senator Levin in Congressional hearings on peer-to-peer Internet piracy, 

“taking someone’s intellectual property is a serious offense, punishable by large fines. In the real 

world, violations of copyright law over the Internet are so widespread and easy to accomplish 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 4 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 5 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

that many participants seem to consider it equivalent to jaywalking – illegal but no big deal. But 

it is a big deal. Under U.S. law, stealing intellectual property is just that – stealing. It hurts 

artists, the music industry, the movie industry, and others involved in creative work. And it is 

unfortunate that the software being used – called ‘file sharing’ as if it were simply enabling 

friends to share recipes, is helping create a generation of Americans who don’t see the harm.” 

(emphasis added) 

26. In recognition of the growing problems and challenges with counterfeiting and piracy, 

The Oregon House of Representatives passed House Memorial 2 in 2013, which made the 

following findings: 

Whereas the United States and other nations share the challenge of combating intellectual 

piracy and the counterfeiting of intellectual property such as ... films... and technologies 

that affect the quality of life; and 

Whereas intellectual piracy and counterfeiting have a significant impact on Oregon's 

economy, and the economies of other states and of nations around the world, which results in job 

and earnings losses, reduced tax revenues and increased threats to public health and safety; and 

... 

 Whereas protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights is crucial to the 

future of our innovation-based economy; and 

Whereas industries that use intellectual property extensively generate nearly $7.7 trillion in 

gross output and account for more than 60 percent of total exports from our nation; and 

Whereas industries that use intellectual property extensively ... employ more than 19 million 

Americans, whose salaries average about 60 percent higher than salaries in industries that do not 

make extensive use of intellectual property; and 

Whereas intellectual property infringement can undermine the nation's economic security; 

and 

 Whereas violations of intellectual property rights, ambiguities in the law and a lack of 

enforcement create uncertainty in the marketplace and in the legal system and undermine 

consumer trust; and 

Whereas intellectual property, including trademarks, [are] essential ...; and 

... 

Whereas failing to adequately protect and enforce intellectual property rights will 

increase counterfeiting and illicit trade; 

... 

(emphasis added) 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 5 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 6 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

27. It is clear that giving effect to ORS Chapter 647, the enforcement of Oregon statutes and 

intellectual property rights, and in particular the fight against counterfeiting and piracy are of 

critical importance to both the United States of America and the State of Oregon. 

PEER-TO-PEER INTERNET PIRACY 

28. Peer-to-peer networks, at least in their most common form, are computer systems that 

enable internet users to: 1) make files (including motion pictures) stored on each user's computer 

available for distribution to other users or peers; 2) search for files stored on other users' 

computers; and 3) transfer (“share”) duplicates of files between computers via the Internet. 

29. The particular peer-to-peer protocol at issue in this suit is the BitTorrent protocol. 

30. To use BitTorrent, a user intentionally downloads a program they then install on their 

computer called a “client." The BitTorrent client is the user's interface during the 

downloading/uploading process. The client may be free, supported by advertising, offer 

upgrades or add on services for a fee, or a combination of several options. 

31. A user then intentionally visits a “torrent site” or network site to find media or content 

available for download, often using a standard web browser. 

32. A torrent site is often an advertising revenue or subscription supported index of media or 

content being made available by other users on the network and maintains a listing of books, 

movies and television programs among other protected content. 

33. A user then uses the torrent site to connect with other users and exchange or “share” 

content though the BitTorrent protocol often with many users at the same time. 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 6 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 7 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

34. Internet piracy and in particular BitTorrent piracy, though known as peer-to-peer file 

sharing, is often a for-profit business as many software clients, torrent sites and networks 

generate millions of dollars in revenue through sales and advertising. 

35. To increase the value of the advertising and sometimes subscription access sold by 

torrent sites, many torrent sites work to expand the pool of available titles and speed of 

downloads through increasing the number of member peers and thus the desirability of their 

clients and networks. To accomplish this they reward participants who contribute by giving 

them faster download speeds, greater access, or other benefits. 

36. A significant element of the BitTorrent model is that those who participate and download 

content not only share and upload content with others, but participants are often rewarded 

through various means based on the volume and availability of content participants in turn 

provide the network. In sum, there is a feedback incentive for participants as they obtain not 

only the benefit of their pirated content, but they obtain other benefits by increasing the 

availability of pirated content to others. 

37. There are a number of users that participate in peer-to-peer networks and receive personal 

gain or compensation in that the networks they use reward those who provide large numbers of 

files for distribution to others. 

38. On information and belief, many parties, and possibly defendant, have been compensated 

through benefits received for their participation in expanding the availability of pirated content to 

others through BitTorrent networks, including works that bear plaintiff’s mark. 

39. The use of BitTorrent does more than cause harm through the theft of intellectual 

property. The BitTorrent distribution of pirated files is a model of business that profits from theft 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 7 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 8 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

through sales and advertising and a system of rewards and compensation to the participants, each 

of whom contribute to and further the enterprise. 

40. The defendant is a participant in the BitTorrent distribution of pirated files furthering a 

model of business that profits from theft of intellectual property including plaintiff’s intellectual 

property. 

IP Addresses 

41. An Internet Service Provider, (“ISP”), grants access to the Internet and the ability to send 

and receive information, whether in the form of an email, photo or motion picture. To connect to 

the Internet a user must contract with an ISP and create an account for service either directly, or 

through an intermediary such as a subscriber. 

42. The ISP then generally assigns each subscriber a unique IP address. An IP address is like 

the address used on an envelope. It is the identifier the defendant uses to tell the world not only 

where they are sending data from, but also the location to where any requested data should be 

sent. 

43. Doe No. 1 is a party who has used IP address 98.246.58.231 at 3/1/14, 03:20:44 AM 

UTC to reproduce and distribute a motion picture marked with plaintiff’s registered mark 

without authorization though the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network. 

44. Plaintiff has, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, learned the ISP used by the 

defendant, the torrent file copied and distributed by the defendant, the BitTorrent client 

application utilized by the defendant, and the likely location of the defendant, at least down to 

the state level, if not the county and city as determined by geolocation technology. 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 8 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 9 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

45. Plaintiff’s investigator has further established a direct peer-to-peer link with the 

defendant, confirming not only the apparent IP address used by the defendant, but also the actual 

IP address overcoming any concerns with forging or “spoofing” an IP address. 

46. Plaintiff’s investigator has further monitored defendant’s IP address to the extent 

practical, confirming the IP address is not an incidental or transitory participant in BitTorrent file 

exchanges, but observed as associated with persistent and prolonged BitTorrent activity. As 

such the IP address is likely to go to a specific authorized user and persistent infringer as 

opposed to an occasional guest or visitor or party without authorized and secure access to the 

specific IP address. 

47. Despite the best available investigative techniques, it is impossible for plaintiff to identify 

the defendant by name at this time. 

48. Plaintiff believes the defendant’s ISP Comcast has information identifying the subscriber 

who is either the defendant or who is a party with information needed to identify the defendant if 

defendant acted through the account of the subscriber who was assigned the IP address. Plaintiff 

intends to obtain relevant information by subpoena from Comcast to identify the subscriber and 

any subsequent intermediary in order to learn the identity of the defendant. 

Conduct of Defendant 

49. Plaintiff has recorded defendant identified herein as reproducing and distributing the 

motion picture together with plaintiff’s trademark via BitTorrent as plaintiff's investigator has 

been able to download a portion of the motion picture from the defendant identified herein, and 

plaintiff has been able to download a complete file of the motion picture through BitTorrent, 

obtaining an integral portion from the defendant. 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 9 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 10 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

50. Defendant’s conduct is part of a collective enterprise with a large number of other parties, 

collectively distributing unauthorized reproductions of products bearing plaintiff’s trademark. 

51. On information and belief, defendant’s conduct was unauthorized and in violation of the 

license and terms of access to the Internet through their ISP, Comcast. 

52. On information and belief, defendant was a willing and knowing participant in the 

infringing of plaintiff’s trademark rights. 

53. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a partial listing of some of the activity observed 

associated with Doe No. 1’s IP address. 

54. As can be seen from the data the BitTorrent piracy at issue is unlikely to be that of an 

occasional visitor or guest as the activity is persistent over time. 

55. As can be seen from the data observed with Doe No. 1’s IP address, the BitTorrent piracy 

at issue is unlikely to be from a young child or “innocent” as content does not reflect the type of 

content that might be associated with a young child. 

56. Additional data observed associated with Doe No. 1’s IP address indicates the defendant 

is likely a mature adult with specific viewing habits. 

57. The conduct associated with the defendant’s IP address represents notable economic 

harm not only to plaintiff but also to the people of the State of Oregon. 

58. Based on observed activity the defendant is prolific proponent of the BitTorrent 

distribution system advancing the BitTorrent economy of piracy causing injury to plaintiff. 

59. Some of the titles observed associated with Doe No. 1’s IP address indicate association 

with the BitTorrent site TORRENTING.COM as seen in items 26, and 47. 

60. TORRENTING.COM actively promotes the distribution of the motion picture bearing 

plaintiff’s mark as can be seen from a printout of the web page shown on Exhibit 2. 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 10 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 11 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

61. TORRENTING.COM is torrent index site that profits from piracy of content through 

requesting “donations” as can been seen in Exhibit 3. 

62. As such it is likely Doe No. 1 was involved with the promotion of TORRENTING.COM, 

at least to an incidental degree. 

63. Co-opting and distributing pirated content for the promotion and benefit of third parties is 

regularly observed in the conduct associated with Doe No. 1’s IP address. 

64. While it may or may not be that Doe. No. 1 is personally and directly generating revenue 

or benefit from their conduct, defendant’s conduct as a whole furthers such efforts on behalf of 

others as evidence indicates they persistently download and distribute works, including the 

motion picture bearing plaintiff’s mark for the benefit third parties. 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

ORS 647.105 – State Trademark 

65. Defendant, without the authorization or consent of plaintiff, used and distributed a 

reproduction of content marked with plaintiff’s registered trademark VOLTAGE PICTURES. 

66. Defendant acted with knowledge and in bad faith in their infringement of plaintiff’s 

rights.

67. Plaintiff is entitled to an order enjoining defendant from infringing plaintiff’s rights and 

directing defendant to delete all unauthorized reproductions of content branded with plaintiff’s 

trademark. 

///

///

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 11 of 12
COMPLAINT Page 12 of 12 

Voltage v. Does CROWELL LAW

P.O. Box 923

Salem, OR 97308-0923

Tel: 503-581-1240

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendant as follows: 

A. For entry of permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from infringing plaintiff's 

rights in plaintiff’s trademark, including without limitation by using the Internet to 

reproduce or distribute any products which bear plaintiff’s trademark except pursuant to a 

lawful license or with the express authority of plaintiff. And further directing defendant to 

destroy all unauthorized reproductions of products bearing plaintiff’s trademark. 

B. For plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney fees pursuant to ORS 647.105(2). 

C. For such other and further relief as deemed proper. 

DATED: May 23, 2014. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 CROWELL LAW

/s/ Carl D. Crowell 

 Carl D. Crowell, OSB No. 982049 

P.O. Box 923 

Salem, OR 97308 

Tel: 503-581-1240 

Email: crowell@kite.com 

Of attorneys for the plaintiff 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 7 Filed 05/23/14 Page 12 of 12