

search

browse

help about

register

free lists



home NEW!

Register your email address with URL-MINDER to receive automatic notification when we update Shameless Mind. your email:





JACK RUSSO, Esq., #96068

Russo & Hale

401 Florence Street

Palo Alto, CA 94301

Tel: (415) 327-9800 THOMAS V. ORVIS, Esq., #54259

706 Cowper Street

Palo Alto, CA 94301

Tel: (415)328-4118 Attorneys for the Plaintiff

ROBERT SAPOLSKY, Ph.D. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION ROBERT SAPOLSKY,

Plaintiff, V. Deepak Chopra, Random House, INC., a New York corporation, CROWN BOOKS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, HARMONY BOOKS, a division of CROWN PUBLISHERS, INC., a New York corporation, TOWER RECORDS INC., a California corporation, STACEY'S BOOKSTORE, a California corporation, and BORDERS, INC, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-97 20080

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, LANHAM ACT VIOLATIONS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ADVANTAGEOUS RELATIONS, CONVERSION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff ROBERT SAPOLSKY alleges against Defendants and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows: JURISDICTION 1. This is an action for copyright infringement, Lanham Act Violations, unfair competition, tortious interference with advantageous business relationships, conversion, and unjust enrichment in Violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106; the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127; California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17205, 17500. 2. Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of California and having his principal place of business at Stanford University in Santa Clara County, in the San Jose Division of this District. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Chopra is a resident of the State of Florida who has done and is doing substantial business in the State of California and in this District. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Random House Inc. is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation incorporated in and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that principal place of business for Random House is 201 East 50th Street, New York, New York. Said defendant has done, is qualified to do business in and is doing substantial business in the State of California and in this District including shipping the infringing works in this District. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Crown Books Corporation is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation incorporated in and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that principal place of business for Defendant Crown Books is 3300 75th Avenue, Landover, Maryland 20785. Said defendant has done, is qualified to do business in and is doing substantial business in the State of California and in this District including shipping the infringing works in this District. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Harmony Books is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a division of Crown Publishers, Inc., a corporation incorporated in and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that principal place of business for Defendant Harmony Books is 201 East 50th Street, New York, New York. Said defendant has done, is qualified to do business in and is doing substantial business in the State of California and in this District including shipping the infringing works in this District. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Tower Records, Inc. is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation incorporated in and existing under the laws of the State of California. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that principal place of business for Defendant Tower Records is 2500 Del Monte Street, Sacramento, California 95691. Said defendant has done, is qualified to do business in and is doing substantial business in the State of California and in this District including shipping the infringing works in this District. 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Stacy [sic] Books Stores. is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation incorporated in and existing under the laws of the State of California. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that principal place of business for Defendant Stacy Book Stores is 219 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Said defendant has done, is qualified to do business in and is doing substantial business in the State of California and in this District including shipping the infringing work in this District. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Borders, Inc., is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation incorporated in and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that it does business at 456 UniVersity Avenue in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, California. Said defendant has done, is qualified to do business in and is doing substantial business in the State of California and in this District including shipping the infringing work in this District. 10. The amount in controversy in this action, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $50,000. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338; 15 U.S.C. § 1121; and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (supplemental jurisdiction). 11. Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Background Facts 12. At all relevant times herein plaintiff was and is a full Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University which is located in this district. 13. Plaintiff obtained a bachelors degree in biological anthropology from Harvard University and graduated sum ma cum laude and was admitted to Phi Beta Kappa. 14. Plaintiff holds a Ph.D. in Neuroendocrinology from the Rockefeller University. 15. From the commencement of his post-graduate studies in 1979 until the present plaintiff has devoted his full-time professional work and career to the study and understanding of the psychobiology of stress. He has received numerous awards for his studies, has written extensively in the area, and has lectured widely both to professionals, educators, and lay persons in this area and related fields. 16. As a result of the foregoing efforts, Plaintiff has earned an outstanding reputation, not only in the scholastic community, but generally in the fields of neurobiology, psychology, anthropology, and among mental health professionals and others who study the human condition and aid those desiring to improve their own or others, mental health and human psychology. 17. Before 1992, Plaintiff prepared an original work of authorship entitled "Stress" which he submitted to the publishers of the primary and most highly regarded textbooks in the field, entitled Behavioral Endocrinology, edited by Jill B. Becker, S. Marc Breedlove, and David Crews. Plaintiffs original work of authorship became Chapter 10 of that book, and was re-titled "Neuroendocrinology of the Stress-Response." A copy of said chapter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Work"). 18. The aforesaid book was published by Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") in 1992 and per agreement with Plaintiff, within 90 days of said publication, MIT procured a copyright registration for the entire book including Plaintiff's original work of authorship. A true and copy of that Copyright Registration Certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated by this reference. 19. On September 27, 1995, MIT confirmed Plaintiff's ownership of all right, title, and interest in his original work of authorship comprising Chapter 10 of said copyrighted book by written Assignment to Plaintiff "all right, title, and interest" to the copyright in said Chapter 10 of said work entitled "Neuroendocrinology of the Stress-Response" as well as "all causes of action that the MIT Press has or may have for any past, present or future copyright in and to the Work. A copy of said agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that sometime in or about 1993, subsequent to the publishing and copyrighting of Plaintiffs Work, Defendant Chopra wrote or purported to write a book entitled, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind. Said book and other derivative works based thereon (collectively the "Infringing Works") have been marketed, sold and distributed by the Defendants and each of them in this District, in California and throughout the United States. A copy of the relevant chapter from one of the Infringing Works is attached as Exhibit "D" hereto. 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have sold in excess of 1 million copies of Infringing Works with gross revenues in excess $10 million dollars. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that said defendants earned and received gross profits from the sale of each of the Infringing Works and as a result are directly, vicariously and/or contributorily liable for the violations of Plaintiff's copyright rights and other rights alleged herein and for the unauthorized and illegal use of Plaintiffs copyrighted Work as set forth below. 23. Beginning in mid 1995, Plaintiff learned for the first time that the Infringing Works were strikingly similar to Plaintiff's Work and that the Infringing Works contained sentences, paragraphs, words, and phrases as well as the same structure, sequence and organization as the original copyrighted Work of Plaintiff and that Defendants had taken substantially, if not entirely, from Plaintiffs copyrighted Work without any acknowledgment whatsoever and without the consent, knowledge, or permission of Plaintiff 24. Plaintiff did not become aware of Defendant's appropriation of his Work until mid 1995 when the apparent similarities were brought to his attention by one of his post-doctoral students. Within several weeks another colleague provided to Plaintiff a copy of a New York Times article discussing Defendant Chopra's misappropriation of another scholar's work in the same Ageless Body, Timeless Mind. 25. Within 60 days of receipt of said knowledge, Plaintiff retained legal counsel who gave notice that Defendants Chopra and Random House and related companies cease and desist from the infringement and account for all profits and other monetary amounts achieved from the Infringing Works. Plaintiff and its counsel repeatedly attempted to resolve this matter without litigation. 26. Defendants did not respond to these demands and all negotiations ended in late 1996 when Defendants failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to cease and desist or to provide the accounting demanded by Plaintiff. At no time have Defendants Chopra or Random House, or related companies, or any of them, denied the infringement of Plaintiff's Work. First Claim For Relief

(Copyright Infringement) 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 26, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 28. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, the owner of the copyright in the Work, that is, in Chapter 10, entitled "Neuroendocrinology of the Stress-Response", an original work of authorship contained in the book entitled Behavioral Endocrinology published in 1992. 29. The publisher of Behavioral Endocrinology has marketed and distributed the Work with appropriate and readily ascertainable copyright notices. 30. Each and every element of original and copyrightable subject matter contained in Plaintiff's Work are and at all times have been fully protected by copyright and the copyright rights in the Work as evidenced by the Copyright Registration (Exhibit B, hereto) and the Assignment (Exhibit C, hereto) are owned by Plaintiff. 31. In the Infringing Works, including Ageless Body, Timeless Mind and derivatives thereof, Defendant Chopra has created unauthorized copies and unauthorized adaptions [sic] and derivative works of Plaintiffs Work and otherwise violated his exclusive rights as copyright owner. The remaining defendants, and each of them, have further contributed to the violation of Plaintiff's exclusive rights as copyright owner through the sale and distribution of the Infringing Works. Defendants' acts as alleged herein were knowing and willful. 32. By reason of the foregoing, defendants have infringed the copyright owned by Plaintiff as herein alleged. 33. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' infringement, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount presently unknown but to be proven at trial. As a further direct and proximate result of such infringement, defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount presently unknown hut to be proven at trial in an amount which is believed to exceed $1 million dollars from the Infringing Works. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the continuing violations of his rights as set forth above. Further, the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, is wilful and malicious and such conduct justifies a further award of punitive damages, against Defendants and each of them, in the fullest amount authorized by the U.S. Copyright Act. Second Claim For Relief

(Lanham Act Violations, is U.S.C. § 1125(a)) 34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 26, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 35. Defendants, and each of them, are misrepresenting and distributing to the public misleading advertising and other promotional materials pertaining to the origination, authorship and ownership and rights in and to the material appropriated from Plaintiff's Work and, in other promotional and advertising materials that are being distributed in this District, in California and throughout the United States in interstate commerce. 36. Defendants falsely represent Chopra to be the author of material that is the Work of Plaintiff. These false representations have continued even after Plaintiff's written notice to Defendants Chopra and Random House and related companies. 37. Defendant's promotional and advertising materials and statements pertaining to Defendant Chopra's work are false and misleading to the extent that they state or imply that Chopra wrote or researched the work independently. Such false representations, as alleged above, are likely to cause public and consumer confusion, mistake and deception as to the source or origin of both the Infringing Works and Plaintiff's Work, thereby causing loss, damage and injury to Plaintiff and the purchasing public. 38. Defendants, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable are should have known, that their conduct was likely to so mislead. 39. Defendant's violations of the Lanham Act have been and are deliberate, willful, malicious and fraudulent because defendants knew the true authorship, origin, ownership of Plaintiff's rights in the information which Defendants used to write and market Chopra's work. The foregoing conduct by Defendants, and each of them, further has been intended to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive, in disregard of Plaintiffs rights. 40. Defendant's aforesaid conduct has caused damage to Plaintiff in an amount not yet ascertained but which is believed to be an amount in excess of ¢1 million dollars and Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies and compensation provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and 15 U.S.C. 1117. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the continuing violations of its rights as set forth above. 41. The wrongful acts, as alleged above, have permitted or will permit Defendants, and each of them, to make substantial sales and profits. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct as alleged above, Plaintiff has been and will be deprived of substantial licensing of his Work and his derivative work in an amount as yet unknown but to be proven at trial, and has been and will be deprived of the value of its copyright as commercial asset in an amount as yet unknown but to be determined at trial. Third Claim For Relief

(Unfair Competition (California)) 42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 26, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 43. By the acts alleged above Defendant Chopra and each of the other named Defendants have engaged in unfair competition including unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, deception, and untrue and misleading advertising in violation of Plaintiffs rights and in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et. seq. and the common law. 44. The acts of Defendant Chopra and each of the other named Defendants are in violation and derogation of Plaintiffs rights and are likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers and the public as to the source, origin, sponsorship or quality of Defendant's product, thereby causing loss, damage, and injury to Plaintiff and to the purchasing public. 45. Defendants, and each of them, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that its conduct would likely so mislead the public. 46. The wrongful acts, as alleged above, have permitted or will permit Defendant Chopra and the other named Defendants to make substantial sales and profits on the scholarship and efforts of Plaintiff. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct as alleged above, Plaintiff has been and will be deprived of substantial sales of his work in an amount as yet unknown but to be proven at trial. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the continuing violations of his rights as set forth above. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Tortious interference with Advantageous Business Relations, California) 48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 26, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 49., Since 1979, Plaintiff has established himself in the academic and professional community as one of the leading experts in Biological and behavioral endocrinology. As such Plaintiff has developed ongoing relationships with scholars and professionals in the field as well as those members of the public seeking knowledge and understanding of this most complex and compelling field of study. As pat of these on-going relationships Plaintiff makes himself available for speaking engagements, both renumerative [sic] and promotional. Because of these efforts Plaintiff has every reason to expect many of these existing relationships to grow and new opportunities for advancement and professional renumeration [sic] . 50. Defendants at all times relevant hereto have known of Plaintiffs ongoing professional relationships as alleged herein. 51. Plaintiff has been asked on several occasions whether he has taken his material on the "stress response" contained in the appropriated material from the works of Defendant Chopra. Even though Plaintiff has explained that it is Defendant Chopra who has appropriated his work and research, embarrassing situations have arisen and emotional distress and other damage has been caused by the wrongful acts of Defendants as alleged above; such conduct by Defendants does not enhance or promote Plaintiff's academic and professional standing but rather detracts, tarnishes and injures Plaintiff and his reputation and goodwill. 52. The aforementioned unlawful and unfair conduct by Defendants, and each of them, has disrupted Plaintiffs economic relationship with those scholars and professionals and has resulted in, and will continue to result in, preclusion of Plaintiff's successful continued relationship with these parties. 53. The aforementioned act of Defendants Chopra and Random House and related companies, and each of them were, on information and belief, willful and malicious and were intended to induce or cause a breach or termination of Plaintiff's relationships and expectancies. 54. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct as alleged above, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount as yet unknown but to be proven at trial. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the continuing violations of his rights as set forth above. Fifth Claim For Relief

(Conversion, California) 55., Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 26, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 56. Plaintiffs original research, compilations and other proprietary information is represented and evidenced by the tangible documentation and other tangible property. 57. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants Chopra and Random House and related companies, and each of them, intentionally and deliberately, with full knowledge that such property is owned by Plaintiff, misappropriated and converted such Plaintiff property to their own use and benefit without any compensation to Plaintiff 58. The aforementioned act of Defendants Chopra and Random House and related companies, and each of them, were, on information and belief, willful and malicious and intended to cause harm to Plaintiff. 59. As a direct and proximate result of such wrongful conversion, Plaintiff has incurred damages to an extent not yet ascertained and is entitled to have returned to him all of the property Defendants have wrongfully converted to its own use. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unjust Enrichment, California) 60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 26, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 61. Defendant Chopra, and each of the named Defendants have been unjustly enriched by inter alia using Plaintiffs intellectual property and marketing Defendant Chopra's book without the necessity of undertaking the years of effort anti scholarship Plaintiff had to undertake for his research and writing. 62. As a direct and proximate result of such unjust enrichment, Plaintiff has incurred damages to an extent not yet ascertained. Prayer For Relief WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant Chopra and the other named Defendants (collectively, the "Enjoined Parties"), jointly and severally as follows: 1. For the First Claim for Relief, Copyright Infringement, for judgment: a. Preliminary and permanently enjoining the Enjoined Panties from reproducing, preparing derivative works of, distributing or otherwise infringing Plaintiff's copyright-protected works; b. Preliminary and permanently enjoining the Enjoined Panties from marketing, licensing or selling Defendant Chopra's Ageless Body, Timeless Mind, its derivative works, and any other product resulting from infringement of Plaintiffs copyright-protected works; c. Directing the Enjoined Parties to deliver to the Court to be impounded during the pendency of this action and destroyed thereafter, any and all versions and copies of Defendant Chopra's Ageless Body. Timeless Mind and any other product resulting from infringement of Plaintiffs copyright-protected works; d. Awarding Plaintiff damages for the loss caused by the infringement and for profits attributable to the infringement; e. Awarding Plaintiff statutory damages; f. Awarding Plaintiff his costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, of this action; and g. Granting Plaintiff `such other and further relief the Court deem's just and proper. 2. For the Second Claim for Relief, Lanham Act Violations, for judgment: a. Preliminary and permanently enjoining the Enjoined Parties from making any further false or misleading designations of origin, description or representation in connection with Plaintiff's copyright-protected works; b. Preliminary and permanently enjoining the Enjoined Parties from marketing, licensing, or selling Defendant Chopra's Ageless Body, Timeless Mind and any other product marketed in violation of the Lanham Act; c. Directing the Enjoined Parties to deliver to the Court to be impounded during the pendency of this action and destroyed thereafter, any and all versions and copies of Defendant Chopra's Ageless Body. Timeless Mind and any other product marketed in violation of the Lanham Act; d. Awarding Plaintiff damages for the loss caused by the violation and for profits attributable to the violation; e. Awarding Plaintiff his costs, including reasonable attorneys' fee's, of this action; and f Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief the Court deem's just and proper. 3. For the Third Claim for Relief, Unfair Competition, for judgment: a. Preliminary and permanently enjoining the Enjoined Parties from engaging in any further unfair competition in connection with the Plaintiff's copyright-protected works and those offend Chopra; b. Preliminary and permanently enjoining the Enjoined Parties from marketing, licensing, or selling Defendant Chopra's Ageless Body, Timeless Mind and any other product marketed by unfair competition methods; c. Directing the Enjoined Parties to deliver to the Court to be impounded during the pendency of this action and destroyed thereafter, any and all versions and copies of Defendant Chopra's Ageless Body Timeless Mind and any other product marketed by unfair competition methods; d. Awarding Plaintiff the profits made by Defendant Chopra and the other named Defendants as a result of their unlawful conduct e. Awarding Plaintiff hi's costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, of this action; and f Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper. 4. For the Fourth Claim for Relief, Tortious Interference with Advantageous Business Relationships, for judgment: a. Preliminary and permanently enjoining the Enjoined Parties from further interfering with Plaintiff's advantageous business relationship's; b. Awarding Plaintiff damages for the loss caused by the interference and for the profits attributable to the interference; c. Awarding Plaintiff exemplary damage's; d. Awarding Plaintiff his costs, including reasonable attorneys' fee's, of this action; and e. Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief the Court deem's just and proper. 5. For the Fifth Claim for Relief, Conversion, for judgment: a. Preliminary and permanently enjoining the Enjoined Parties from using, licensing, selling, distributing or disclosing, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner any of Plaintiffs property that Defendant Chopra or an;- of the other named Defendants wrongfully converted to their own use; b. requiring the Enjoined Parties to return to Plaintiff any and all property in their custody, possession or control; c. Awarding Plaintiff damages for the loss caused by the conversion and Defendant's profits attributable thereto; d. Awarding Plaintiff exemplary damages; e. Awarding Plaintiff his costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, of this action; and f. Granting Plaintiff `such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper. 6. Under his Sixth Claim for Relief, Unjust Enrichment, for judgment: a. Awarding to Plaintiff all the amounts by which Defendant's have been unjustly enriched; b. Awarding Plaintiff his cost's, including reasonable attorneys' fees, of this action; and c. Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper. RUSSO & HALE DATED: January 23, 1997 By: [Jack Russo] DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all matters properly subject to a trial by jury as allowed by law. VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and know its contents. I am a party to this action, and I make this verification for that reason. Each fact set forth therein is true to my personal knowledge except such matters as are stated on information and belief. As to those matter's Set forth on information and belief, I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that these matters are true. I declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States and under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct and executed on this 23 day of January, 1997 in Palo Alto. [Robert Sapolsky]