Flava Works pounds Illinois with new copyright movie piracy lawsuit

If your handle is on this list, give us a call to discuss. Do not panic; Vondran Legal® can defend you and help you achieve an early settlement without expensive litigation to follow. We have helped many in your situation.

April 2025 Legal Updates: Flava is back at it again. Filing a lawsuit against 47 John Doe alleged downloaders. Here is what you need to know.

Introduction

A new copyright infringement (movie piracy) lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of Illinois Federal Court And 47 John Does (anonymous unknown infringers) have been named in the complaint. FLAVA WORKS will seek to uncover their names with early discovery and by sending a subpoena for the subscribers information to their internet service provider (for example, Cox, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.). Federal judges routinely grant this discovery so that the plaintiff can uncover the identities of the alleged infringers and later amend (add) them to the lawsuit. If you received a subpoena, you can move to quickly settle, usually anonymously unless there is a financial hardship, and get the case dismissed with prejudice.

First question, who is the plaintiff Blatino Media?

Per the complaint: Plaintiff, Blatino Media, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business at 2705 West Fulton, Chicago, Illinois 60612. Here is more information per Zoominfo.

Next, who is plaintiff Flava Works?

Per the complaint: Plaintiff, FlavaWorks Entertainment, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business at 2705 West Fulton, Chicago, Illinois 60612.

Copyright infringement allegations asserted in the lawsuit

Here is a sample of the allegations they have asserted in their lawsuit.

• This is an action for copyright infringement pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; for trademark infringement pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., as amended. Plaintiffs bring this action to stop Defendants from infringing, promoting, encouraging, enabling and facilitating the infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights (collectively “Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property”) on the Internet.

• Plaintiffs bring this action to stop Defendants from continuing to encourage, enable and contribute to the infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights on the Internet. Defendant Nicolas Gaudet-Labrosse joined or visited FlavaWorks' paid membership-only websites, agreed to FlavaWorks' terms and services, downloaded copyrighted videos owned by FlavaWorks, and copied and distributed the aforesaid copyrighted videos in violation of the agreed-upon terms of service.

• Plaintiff FlavaWorks Entertainment, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff produces adult entertainment in the form of DVDs, magazines, websites, pictures, streaming video and various other media. Plaintiff Blatino Media, Inc. is an Illinois corporation also headquartered in Chicago and affiliated with the creation, licensing, and distribution of copyrighted adult content.

• Plaintiff distributes its adult entertainment through various distributors and licensees, as well as through its websites: www.FlavaMen.com, www.CocoDorm.com, www.CocoStore.com, and www.ThugBoy.com, among others. Plaintiff has applied for and has registered various copyrights for its works. Plaintiff is recognized nationally and internationally as a leader in the field of production and distribution of gay adult entertainment due, in large part, to the goodwill and name recognition associated with its trademarks, as well as the high-quality content that is associated with its copyrighted material.

• At all relevant times, Defendant Nicolas Gaudet-Labrosse visited or joined as paid members of FlavaWorks websites. Defendant Nicolas Gaudet-Labrosse agreed to the terms and conditions of the site and agreed that Defendants would not copy and distribute copyrighted videos of FlavaWorks. Copies of FlavaWorks' terms and conditions are attached as Group Exhibit “A”. Notwithstanding the aforesaid agreements, Defendant Nicolas Gaudet-Labrosse downloaded copyrighted videos of FlavaWorks as part of his paid memberships and, in violation of the terms and conditions of the paid sites, posted and distributed the aforesaid videos on other websites, including websites with peer-to-peer sharing and torrent technology.

• As a result of Defendant Nicolas Gaudet-Labrosse' conduct, third parties were able to download the copyrighted videos without permission of Plaintiffs, specifically John Does 1-47 as well as other unnamed users.

• Plaintiff has sued for the following four causes of action:

1. Direct Copyright Infringement as to all Defendants— 17 U.S.C. § 501
2. Contributory Copyright Infringement
3. Vicarious Copyright Infringement
4. Inducement of Copyright Infringement

Their Prayer for Relief:

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs, FlavaWorks Entertainment, Inc. and Blatino Media Inc., respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter the following:

1. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against the Defendant Nicolas Gaudet-Labrosse for $1,500,000.00 plus attorney's fees and court costs.

2. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants John Doe 1-47 in the amount $150,000.00 plus attorney's fees and court costs.

3. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against Defendants and their aliases, their agents, servants, representatives, employees, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, related companies, partners, successors, predecessors, assigns, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, or under Defendants and each of them during the pendency of this action as preliminary injunction and permanently thereafter from:

a. Restraining and enjoining Defendants from posting any material on website(s) that infringes Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property, as well as from facilitating third-party postings of infringing material on any website(s) and/or links which enable easy access to Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property that is located on third-party websites;

b. Restraining and enjoining Defendants from otherwise distributing, reproducing, using, copying, streaming, making available for download, or otherwise exploiting Plaintiff's Intellectual Property, including Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, trademarks, trade dress, or any other products or symbols indicative of Plaintiffs' ownership, through use of their website(s) or otherwise;

c. Restraining and enjoining Defendants from doing any other act, through any website(s) or otherwise, which shall confuse, deceive, cause mistake, etc. among the relevant trade and general public as to the association, sponsorship and/or approval between Plaintiffs and any website(s);

d. Restraining and enjoining Defendants from otherwise using, copying or otherwise exploiting Plaintiffs' copyrights and copyrighted works;

e. Restraining and enjoining Defendants from otherwise using, disclosing, converting, appropriating, retaining, selling, transferring or copying any property of Plaintiffs;

4. Requiring Defendants to submit to the Court and to serve upon Plaintiffs a report, written under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the terms of this injunction;

5. Disgorging Defendants of any profits they may have made as a result of his or her infringement of Plaintiff's Intellectual Property;

6. Awarding Plaintiffs the actual damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' infringement of Plaintiff's Intellectual Property, the amount of which is to be determined at trial;

7. Awarding Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages as deemed just by this Court due to Defendants' willful misconduct;

8. Awarding Plaintiffs the costs of this action, together with reasonable attorney's fees;

9. In the alternative, awarding Plaintiffs statutory damages pursuant to the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act;

10. In the alternative, awarding Plaintiffs enhanced statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) of the Copyright Act, for Defendants' willful infringement of Plaintiffs copyrighted works;

11. Requiring within ten (10) days after the entry of an order for either preliminary or permanent injunction, Defendants be required to turn over any files containing Plaintiffs' Intellectual Property;

12. Requiring Defendants to deliver up for destruction all of Plaintiffs' intellectual property.

13. Awarding trebled damages for Defendants' infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights.

14. Awarding any such other and further relief as this Court deems just, reasonable and equitable.

They also seek a jury trial.

How do these cases typically play out?

Generally speaking, most of the cases settle. Copyright infringement lawsuits can be very expensive, and if you lose, you are subject to potentially paying not only your own attorney fees but theirs as well (See 17 U.S.C. 505). Settlement can vary as noted below.

What are the typical settlements?

Settlements can vary greatly. From several thousand up to $25,000 or more. There are many different factors. You can get some ideas by watching my video on how settlements typically work in copyright infringement cases. The TOP THREE key factors they look at are:

(a) the extent of the infringement,

(b) willingness to accept accountability for movie piracy,

and

(c) the financial condition of the downloader.

More resources

Here are a few more key resources that might help you if you find yourself facing being named as a defendant in Flava Works cases.

1. Crashcourse on Copyright infringement damages
2. Flava Works prior lawsuit
3. Piracy Log podcast discusses Flava Works legal actions