| Both sides in a
dispute over ownership of Tennessee Walking Horse
registry information are claiming victory in a case that
took two years to process through the legal system,
despite one of the parties being found in violation of
copyright laws and fined $31,000. |
| The court contest
began in December 2005 when the Tennessee Walking Horse
Breeders and Exhibitors' Association (TWHBEA), founded
in 1935 to promote and maintain the purity within the
Tennessee Walking Horse breed, filed a five-count
complaint against the National Walking Horse Association
(NWHA). The NWHA was established in 1998 to preserve and
promote natural gaits of Walking Horses and other gaited
breeds. |
| On Dec. 12 of this
year U.S. District Court Judge Todd C. Campbell ruled
that the NWHA violated copyright laws when it
"solicited"--and accepted--TWHBEA registration documents
from horse owners as way to provide pedigree and other
identifying information for NWHA registration. |
| As a result of the
ruling, TWHBEA was awarded $31,000 in statutory damages.
The NWHA was barred from soliciting or referring to the
TWHBEA registry, certificates, or registration numbers
in its applications or Web site, and it was ordered to
return all TWHBEA certificates in its possession. |
| TWHBEA Interim
Executive Director Stan Butt declined comment. However,
a statement posted on TWHBEA's Web site characterized
the final opinion as "a very strong victory for TWHBEA,
and it reaffirms the Court's summary judgment on the
copyright claim from January 2007 in TWHBEA's favor." |
| Still, NWHA Executive
Director Donald A. Vizi called the final ruling a win
for his organization. |
| "The judgment was in
favor of NWHA because claims of trademark infringement,
unfair competition, trademark dilution, and intentional
interference with business relations were all found to
be without merit and dismissed," Vizi said. "The court
also said pedigree and factual information about a horse
are not copyrightable. That means our tracking registry
is intact." |
| Both parties have
until Jan. 12, 2008 to appeal the court's final ruling. |
|
BACK |
