Table Of Content
- Settlement or Trial?
- Q: Has Kindig It Design implemented any changes in response to the lawsuit?
- ACMS Document URL Unavailable
- Six Things You Should Know About Any Legal Process
- Kindig It Design Lawsuit: The Legal Proceedings and Courtroom Drama
- The Emergence of the Kindig It Design Lawsuit: What Led to the Legal Battle?

Apart from the copyright violation, Kindig-It Designs also accused Creative Controls of using their company’s images and pictures without their permission. In response to the accusations, Creative Control demanded either to dismiss the case for lack of personal authority or, to have the matter transferred to Michigan and dissolve the claims. 3) The court cannot conclude that the copyrights are invalid. ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Centricut, LLC , 34 F.Supp.2d 323, 333 (D.S.C.1999) (footnote omitted); see Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A.
Settlement or Trial?
Second, Creative Controls donated a custom parking brake for use on a car that Kindig was customizing. Third, Creative Controls made a single sale of a door handle to a Utah customer for $585. Fourth, Creative Controls allegedly copied photographs and contents from Kindig's Utah-based website. On November 23, 2016, Kindig-It served its first set of discovery requests on Creative Controls. On January 17, 2017, Creative Controls responded to the request.
Q: Has Kindig It Design implemented any changes in response to the lawsuit?
Corvettes for Sale: LS7-Powered Kindig CF1 offered by Corvette Mike on Bring a Trailer - Corvette: Sales, News ... - Corvette Blogger
Corvettes for Sale: LS7-Powered Kindig CF1 offered by Corvette Mike on Bring a Trailer - Corvette: Sales, News ....
Posted: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:00:00 GMT [source]
Kindig argues that the court has personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls for the patent-related claims because Creative Controls has an interactive website. It asserts that this website “clearly evidences [Creative Controls'] intent to do business in the State of Utah” and that the website constitutes an offer to sell in Utah. Creative Controls responds that it has made no sales to Utah residents, with the exception of the sale to a party related to Kindig, and that there is no evidence that any other Utah resident has ever viewed the website.
ACMS Document URL Unavailable

Misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of [the] goods.” Robert J. Debry & Assocs., P.C. V. Qwest Dex, Inc. , 144 P.3d 1079, 1081 (Utah 2006) (quoting Utah Code § 13–11a–3(1)(b) (2006) ). A. Kindig has sufficiently plead its claims for copyright infringement. The traditional tests for personal jurisdiction are readily applicable to internet-based conduct and are therefore controlling under Federal Circuit law.
Creative Controls argues that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Whether a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant depends on the defendant's contacts with the forum state. Those contacts may give rise to either general or specific personal jurisdiction. A party is subject to general personal jurisdiction only when its “affiliations with the [forum] State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Daimler AG v. Bauman , –––U.S.
Kindig It Design Lawsuit: The Legal Proceedings and Courtroom Drama
This article aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the Kindig It Design Lawsuit, shedding light on its origins, developments, and eventual resolution. Throughout this journey, we will explore the legal aspects, controversies, and the impact it had on the automotive community. It is important to note that the Kindig-It Design lawsuit was settled, so it is not possible to know for sure whether the court would have found in Kindig-It Design’s favor. However, the settlement does suggest that Creative Controls may have believed that it had a strong case against Kindig-It Design.
If you are a custom car shop that has been accused of infringing on the copyrights or patents of another company, you should speak to an attorney to discuss your legal options. But Creative Controls has also argued that some of the copyrights may be invalid and discovery is required on this issue. Because both the unjust enrichment and conversion claims are based on all the photographs, including some that may not be validly copyrighted, the court cannot determine which claims, if any, are preempted. Accordingly, the court declines to rule on the preemption issues at this stage of the proceedings.
How to Choose a Family Law Attorney
Additionally, Kindig has attached the copyright registrations to the complaint. While the court agrees that attaching the actual copyrighted works to the complaint may have been helpful, Kindig's failure to do so does not merit dismissal. Kindig has provided enough information in the Complaint to meet Rule 8's requirement of “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and to provide Creative Controls with sufficient notice of the claims. Kindig is not required, at the pleading stage of the proceedings, to attach all relevant documents to the Complaint. Furthermore, the court notes that the discovery process will easily provide Creative Controls with access to the specific copyrighted materials. Creative Controls' second alleged contact with Utah occurred approximately five years ago when Creative Controls donated to Kindig a custom parking brake for a car that Kindig was customizing.
The Emergence of the Kindig It Design Lawsuit: What Led to the Legal Battle?
In recent years, the world of automotive customization has gained significant popularity, with enthusiasts seeking to transform their vehicles into unique works of art. One prominent figure in this industry is Dave Kindig, the founder of Kindig-It Design. However, even in this creative realm, legal disputes can arise. This article delves into the details of the “Kindig It lawsuit,” exploring the events, controversies, and outcomes surrounding this legal battle. In Kindig-It, the plaintiff filed suit in Utah asserting that the defendant, a Michigan corporation with no physical presence in Utah, had infringed its patents by selling auto parts. Kindig alleges that Creative Controls operates websites that contain copyrighted photographs illegally copied from Kindig's website.
So, in 2015, Kindig-It Design filed a case against Michigan-based Creative Control, claiming that it violated its copyright and patents. Kindig's claim for fraud (claim 9) is based on Creative Controls' alleged use of Kindig's work on Creative Controls' website. Accordingly, Kindig's claim appears to be that Creative Controls committed fraud on the public at large. Kindig has not, however, cited any case or statute suggesting that a private company may bring a “fraud on the public” claim when that company was not itself defrauded. Indeed, the case upon which Kindig relies makes clear that, under Utah law, the party bringing the claim for fraud must have acted in reliance on the fraud.
Given the amount in controversy in this case and the limited scope of the sole remaining issue of damages, the court concludes that the additional information requested was not proportional to the needs of the case. The Kindig It lawsuit served as a cautionary tale for both businesses and clients in the automotive customization industry. It highlighted the importance of clear communication, well-defined contracts, and managing customer expectations. Industry professionals and enthusiasts alike could draw valuable insights from this legal battle to prevent similar disputes in the future. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting World – Wide Volkswagen , 444 U.S. at 292, 100 S.Ct. 580 ). The traditional tests are readily adaptable to the digital age, just as they were to technological advances like the telegraph, radio, television, and telephone.
Kindig-it Design Unveils the '53 Corvette Inspired Kindig CF1! - MotorTrend
Kindig-it Design Unveils the '53 Corvette Inspired Kindig CF1!.
Posted: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 08:00:00 GMT [source]
Having determined that the court's jurisdiction is limited to the Copyright-Related Claims, the court will only consider the Rule 12 motion to dismiss as it relates to those claims. 2) The illegal copying of photographs on Kindig's Utah website gives rise to personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls on all claims related to the alleged copying. As explained above, Tenth Circuit law governs the question of this court's personal jurisdiction for claims unrelated to the patents.
Additionally, Utah has a strong interest in the resolution of this dispute. Utah has an interest in ensuring that the copyrights owned by its citizens are not illegally infringed. Similarly, Utah has an interest in the adjudication of the unfair trade practices claims. For all of these reasons, the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls is consistent with Due Process and does not violate notions of fair play and substantial justice. Kindig-It Design, a custom car shop based in Salt Lake City, Utah, filed a lawsuit against Creative Controls, Inc., a Michigan-based company that sells automotive parts and accessories, in 2014. Kindig-It Design alleged that Creative Controls had infringed on its copyrights and patents by selling products that were similar to Kindig-It Design’s products.
And then, because it possesses personal jurisdiction over the first claim, asserts personal jurisdiction over the second claim.” Botefuhr , 309 F.3d at 1272. However, pendent personal jurisdiction may only be exercised if the second claim “arises out of the same nucleus of operative fact” as the first claim. Even then, however, “a district court retains discretion.” Id. at 1273. Under traditional personal jurisdiction analysis, the court must consider whether Creative Controls' website constitutes a purposeful availment of the Utah forum. By its very nature, the internet allows individuals and businesses to create a presence that is visible throughout the United States and the world. Even so, “one cannot purposefully avail oneself of ‘some forum someplace.’ ” Revell v. Lidov , 317 F.3d 467, 475 (5th Cir.2002).
A. The court lacks specific personal jurisdiction over Creative Controls on the patent-related claims. In arguing that this court has jurisdiction, Kindig points to four distinct “contacts” that Creative Controls allegedly has to Utah. First, Creative Controls maintained a website on which customers, including any from Utah, could place orders.
That claim has is also unrelated to the allegedly copied photographs or to Utah. However, claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 (collectively, the “Copyright-Related Claims”) are for conversion, copyright infringement, Lanham act violations, fraud, deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment. These Copyright-Related Claims all arise from Creative Controls' alleged copying of the photographs from Kindig's Utah website. Accordingly, the court concludes that they do arise out of the Creative Control's contact with Utah. The purposeful availment requirement “ensures that a defendant will not be subject to the laws of a jurisdiction ‘solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or of the unilateral activity of another party or third person.’ ” AST Sports Sci.