Further to the recent discussion of Zuffa’s ‘successful prosecutions‘ regarding piracy of their Pay Per View product I’ve taken some time to dig deeper into the issue. There are far more reported cases than have made headlines in the MMA media and the lesson is stark; Zuffa has a strong track record attracting high damages in cases of default judgement for unlawful interception of their PPV events. For those interested here are some highlights of recent Zuffa intellectual property litigation:

Zuffa v. Bidwell – Zuffa succeeds in securing default judgement for unlawful interception of UFC 114 with damages to be assessed

Zuffa v. Pryce – Zuffa obtains default judgement for unauthorized viewing of UFC 130 and 131 and damages and costs of almost $12,000 being assessed

Zuffa v. Al-Shaikh – Zuffa obtains default judgement for unlawful interception of UFC 104 with over $10,000 in damages in costs assessed

Zuffa v. Black Diamond – Default judgement obtained with damages and costs of over $10,000 assessed

Zuffa v. Miller – Zuffa obtained default judgement for ‘satellite piracy’ with respect to UFC 121 – Damages and Costs of over $24,000 were assessed

Zuffa v. Holtsberry – Zuffa obtains default judgement for illegal interception of UFC 129 – Damages and Costs of $5,633 were assessed

Zuffa v. Parker – Zuffa obtains default judgement interception of UFC 130 – Damages and Costs of over $32,000 were assessed

Zuffa v. Patel – Zuffa obtains summary judgement with damages to be assessed

Zuffa v. Pohl – Zuffa obtains default judgement for unlawful interception of a PPV event with Damages and Costs of over $42,000 assessed

Zuffa v. Hassan – Zuffa obtains default judgement for unlawful interception of UFC 113 – Damages and Costs of over $17,000 assessed

Zuffa v. Carranza – Zuffa obtains judgement and damages against Defendant for selling “infringing merchandise”

Zuffa v. Kamranian – Zuffa obtains summary judgement for broadcasting UFC 123 without authorization with damages being assessed at $4,200. This case was of particular interest as the infringing activity was simply viewing the event from an on-line stream (however this did occur in a commercial establishment which was important in the finding of liability).