IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Detroit Lions dismissed from infringement action for want of personal jurisdiction, (Apr 2, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Detroit Lions’, a professional American football team based in Michigan, had only attenuated contacts in New York.

A professional sports photographer’s first amended complaint alleged copyright infringement claims against the Detroit Lions, Inc. (Detroit Lions), which moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Detroit Lions’ motion to dismiss was granted by the federal district court in Manhattan for want of personal jurisdiction (Kee v. Detroit Lions, Inc., No. 24-cv-223 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2025)).

Background. A professional sports photographer filed suit against The Detroit Lions, Inc. (Detroit Lions); Fanatics Retail Group North, LLC (Fanatics); Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (DSG); Bullion International, Inc. d/b/a The Highland Mint (Highland Mint); Timeless Creations, Inc. (TCI); McFarlane Toys, Inc. (McFarlane); Kevin Gordon d/b/a VC Collectibles (VC Collectibles); and a number of other defendants alleging copyright infringement and related claims after a photo he took of Barry Sanders, a former football running back who played for the Detroit Lions was used without his permission. The photographer alleged the photograph was used without authorization, license, or permission to create a statue, video, and related merchandise. The photographer filed a first amended complaint alleging copyright infringement claims against the Detroit Lions. Detroit Lions moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

Personal jurisdiction. The photographer contended that the Detroit Lions are subject to jurisdiction due to their association with other co-defendants who have significant contacts in New York. However, the Detroit Lions sought to dismiss the photographer’s first amended complaint. Their argument is based on the assertion that their contacts in New York are minimal, preventing the court from establishing either general or specific personal jurisdiction over them.

Under the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules (N.Y. C.P.L.R.) § 301, a defendant is only subject to general jurisdiction if they are domiciled in New York, served with process in New York, or continuously and systematically does business in New York. The Detroit Lions are neither incorporated in New York nor is New York their principal place of business. However, the photographer argued that the Detroit Lions’ dealings with the NFL Entities that conduct their business from New York on behalf of clubs like the Detroit Lions showed extensive, ongoing, and thoroughly pervasive contractual and business relationships with the NFL and its various subsidiaries and related corporate entities such that the Detroit Lions were truly at home in New York. The court found that the fact that the Detroit Lions who play in Michigan and carry out some of their business through New York was insufficient to establish general jurisdiction. Therefore, the court declined to exercise general jurisdiction over the Detroit Lions.

According to New York law, a court can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary if they: (1) transact business in New York; (2) commit a tortious act (excluding defamation) in New York; (3) commit a tortious act (excluding defamation) outside of New York that causes injury within New York; or (4) own, use, or possess real property in New York. The photographer claimed that the Detroit Lions provided the Sanders Photograph to Highland Mint (a Florida corporation), who then sold and distributed the Photo Mint Product to co-defendant retailers in New York, including DSG and Fanatics. Additionally, the photographer argued that Highland Mint pays royalties to the NFL (with payments made to New York), who then pays a share of these royalties to the Detroit Lions (with payments made from New York). However, the photographer has not asserted that the contributory or vicarious infringement claims against the Detroit Lions arose from their contacts with New York. Consequently, the court cannot exercise specific jurisdiction over the Detroit Lions.

The Case is No. 24-cv-223 (ALC).

Judge: Carter Jr., A.

Attorneys: Nathaniel Kleinman (The Mcculloch Law Firm PLLC) for Kee. Daniel Joel Aaron (Daniel J. Aaron, P.C.) for The Detroit Lions, Inc. Rylan Brook (Powley & Gibson, P.C.) for Fanatics Retail Group North, LLC. Matthew F. Bruno (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP) for Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. Rylan Brook (Powley & Gibson, P.C.) for Bullion International, Inc. Allen Joseph Underwood, II (Lite Depalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC) for Timeless Creations, Inc. Jura Christine Zibas (Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP) for McFarlane Toys, Inc.

Companies: The Detroit Lions, Inc.; Fanatics Retail Group North, LLC; Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.; Bullion International, Inc.; Timeless Creations, Inc.; McFarlane Toys, Inc.

Cases: Copyright NewYorkNews