MIAMI – In a potentially embarrassing turn of events with an uncertain outcome, adult entertainment studio Urb-Flixz apparently has inadvertently filed suit against itself, alleging “widespread, flagrant, intentional, willful, unconscionable, sinister and downright rude copyright and trademark infringement” among other claims.
As Urb-Flixz learned shortly after filing the complaint, however, the defendant targeted in the suit, ErotoFunk Inc., is wholly owned by the plaintiff, according to court documents.
While an obvious resolution to the case would seem to be voluntary dismissal of the claims , Urb-Flixz spokesman Promachus Studebaker said the company intends to forge ahead with the lawsuit, despite the apparent mishap in naming defendants.
“If you look at the sites at issue in this case, almost 100 percent of the content on them was produced by Urb-Flix,” Studebaker said. He dismissed the fact his studio also owns ErotoFunk as “irrelevant spin from the defendants meant to distract people from [ErotoFunk’s] malicious misdeeds.”
“I think it’s all a little too convenient,” Studebaker said. “We file suit against them, and then they tell us we own that site, too? Don’t get me wrong: It’s exactly what I’d say were our positions reversed, but don’t expect the court to fall for it.”
Tito Mendacio, the attorney representing Urb-Flixz, said despite the “obvious logical paradox” inherent in a company suing itself, he intends to provide both sides of the dispute with “responsible, ethical and competitively-priced legal advice.”
“There are some very interesting and novel issues in this case, about which I’m very much looking forward to engaging myself in a spirited and contentious legal debate,” Mendacio said. “From the perspective of my clients, the great part is they will share the burden of paying all the legal fees, with absolute assurance they will be treated fairly by both their own and opposing counsel. I’ve even already promised each party no matter which side prevails, I won’t ask the court to make the loser pay the full cost of the litigation.”
Some legal experts doubt whether the court will permit what amounts to a single-party lawsuit to proceed to trial, however, citing a long string of “precedent” and “rules of civil procedure” and other boring shit nobody wants to read about.
“In the long history of American jurisprudence, I can’t think of a more asinine set of claims or a more obviously moot case ever coming before the bar,” said some George-Washington-looking guy lying on a park bench near a federal courthouse, who claimed to be a lawyer or a judge or a paralegal or “some shit like that.” “Then again, I’m so shitfaced on happy-hour margaritas right now I can barely read, so you could have handed me a copy of Watchtower magazine instead of an intellectual property complaint and I wouldn’t have known the difference.”
Herm Daza, owner of Flawless 7 Studios, said his experience in litigating copyright claims gives him little confidence Urb-Flixz can prevail—even against itself.
“It’s going to be the same story as every copyright case I ever filed,” Daza said. “Fucking DMCA ‘safe harbor’ fucking bullshit, blah blah blah, you lose, you pay your lawyer, you pay their lawyer, and at the end of the day, Google is still displaying your shit in their image search, those fucking thieving nerd ‘Don’t Be Evil’ bullshit motherfuckers.”
Adult industry attorney, ethnologist, choreographer, esteemed ballroom dancer, antique coin collector and noticeably short person Francis Edgar Mostaccioli, Esq., disagreed with Daza, however, saying he believes Urb-Flix has a “cognizable, cogent and meticulously elucidated” set of claims against itself.
“As counterintuitive and contradictory as it may seem, people need to understand under American law and pursuant to a variety of international treaties, intellectual property rights-holders enjoy nearly unfettered latitude in vigorously enforcing and aggressively applying their government-granted exclusive right to perform, display, back-light, copy, disseminate, distribute, fondle, license, sub-license, prepare derivative works based upon or snort their creations,” Mostaccioli said. “The fact the plaintiff and defendant are the same party in no way diminishes the clear duty of care and other fiduciary duties owed by the defendant/plaintiff to the plaintiff/defendant.”
While the George Washington lookalike declined to offer a firm prediction about the eventual outcome, should the case actually be adjudicated, he did opine the question was “entirely beside the point.”
“This case is going to end like most other civil copyright cases: Settled quietly, with terms confidential and no admission of wrongdoing by anyone involved,” he muttered. “Do you know if the No. 16 bus is still running at this hour? I probably shouldn’t try to drive right now.”
