Daybreak sues THJ

[Reiwa]

There's a new filing

IV. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 5 
A. Daybreak’s Request for Mandatory Injunctive Relief Should Be Denied. ...... 5 
B. Daybreak Cannot Show a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the 
Merits................................................................................................................. 6 
1. Equitable Estoppel Bars Daybreak’s Claims. ............................................ 6 
a. Daybreak and Its Predecessors Knew About EQ Emulators, 
Like THJ, for Decades and Did Nothing. ........................................... 7 
b. For Decades, Daybreak and Its Predecessors Created an 
Impression They Were Acceptable. .................................................... 7 
c. Daybreak’s Inaction and Public Statements Gave Defendants 
Reasonable Impression Emulator Conduct Was Acceptable. ............. 9 
d. Defendants Detrimentally Relied on Daybreak’s Conduct. ................ 9 
2. Laches Bars Plaintiff’s Claims, at Least for Injunctive Relief. ............... 10 
a. Laches Bars the Requested Injunction for the Copyright Claim. ..... 10 
b. Laches Bars Plaintiff’s Trademark Claims. ...................................... 11 
3. Plaintiff Cannot Show a Likelihood of Success on Its Claims. ............... 12 
a. Daybreak Fails to Adequately Plead Direct or Vicarious 
Copyright Infringement. .................................................................... 12 
b. Daybreak Fails to Adequately Plead a Violation of the DMCA. ...... 14 
c. Plaintiff’s Trademark Infringement Claims Also Fails. .................... 15 
d. Daybreak Fails to State a Claim for Breach of Contract. .................. 17 
4. Daybreak’s Complaint Names Improper Defendants. ............................. 18 
C. Daybreak Will Not Suffer Irreparable Harm If the Motion Is Denied. .......... 18 
1. Daybreak’s Delay Rebuts Any Presumption of Irreparable Harm. ......... 18 
2. Daybreak Provides Insufficient Evidence of Irreparable Harm. ............. 19 
a. Daybreak’s Claimed Damage to Goodwill and Reputation Is 
Not Irreparable Injury. ....................................................................... 20 
b. Daybreak’s Alleged Financial Peril Is Contradictory and 
Insufficiently Attributed to Defendants to Merit an Injunction. ....... 20 
c. Daybreak Provides No Evidence That Money Damages Are 
Insufficient. ........................................................................................ 23 
D. The Balance of the Equities Favors Denying Injunctive Relief. .................... 24 
E. A Preliminary Injunction Does Not Favor the Public Interest. ....................... 24

I feel like there's a lot of vocabulary in here that'll be useful to Vulak raiders.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]