| |
| | FONOVISA, INC. v. CHERRY AUCTION, INC., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996) (LOISLAW) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-01) |
 | | [5] Fonovisa filed its original complaint in the district court on February 25, 1993, and on March 22, 1994, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). |
 | | In this appeal, Fonovisa does not challenge the district court's dismissal of its claim for direct copyright infringement, but does appeal the dismissal of its claims for contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement and contributory trademark infringement. |
 | | The facts alleged by Fonovisa, however, reflect that the defendants reap substantial financial benefits from admission fees, concession stand sales and parking fees, all of which flow directly from customers who want to buy the counterfeit recordings at bargain basement prices. |
| www.law.cornell.edu /copyright/cases/76_F3d_259.htm (2862 words) |
|