Difference between revisions of "Archie v. Penders"
From Sega Retro
(Created page with "{{LawsuitBob | image=Courtseal US NYsouth.png | title=''Archie Comic Publications, Inc. v. Ken Penders'' | court=wikipedia:United States District Court for the Southern Dist...") |
m |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{sub-stub}}'''''Archie Comic Publications, Inc. v. Ken Penders''''', 1:10-CV-08858, is a 2013 case in which [[Archie Comic Publications]] sued comic artist [[sonic:Ken Penders|Ken Penders]] in response to the threat of Penders' litigation concerning his involvement in the inception of certain characters of the ''[[sonic:Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie comics)|Sonic the Hedgehog]]'' comic series.{{ref|http://patentarcade.com/2015/07/decided-archi-comic-publications-inc-v.html}} | {{sub-stub}}'''''Archie Comic Publications, Inc. v. Ken Penders''''', 1:10-CV-08858, is a 2013 case in which [[Archie Comic Publications]] sued comic artist [[sonic:Ken Penders|Ken Penders]] in response to the threat of Penders' litigation concerning his involvement in the inception of certain characters of the ''[[sonic:Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie comics)|Sonic the Hedgehog]]'' comic series.{{ref|http://patentarcade.com/2015/07/decided-archi-comic-publications-inc-v.html}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==History== | ||
| + | In January 2009, former [[Archie Comics]] artist [[sonic:Ken Penders|Ken Penders]] began copyrighting various stories, characters, and artwork that he created for the company's ''[[sonic:Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie comics)|Sonic the Hedgehog]]'' comic series, with these claims being officially certified in April 2010 by the United States Copyright Office. After declaring that he would "use every legal means at my disposal to protect and preserve" his contested works, Archie Comics [filed a lawsuit against Penders in the Fall of 2010 in an attempt to retain their copyright holdings. | ||
| + | |||
| + | During this lawsuit, Penders launched his own lawsuit against [[Sega of America]] and [[Electronic Arts]], ''[[Penders v. Sega]]''. On September 26, 2011, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, stating that Penders could re-file the action after the conclusion of ''Archie v. Penders''. Instead, Penders decided to re-file the same action on October 3 in the same district. On February 23, 2012, Judge Wright dismissed the case without prejudice.{{ref|http://patentarcade.com/2012/07/new-case-kenneth-w-penders-ii-v-sega-of.html}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 06:42, 1 March 2024
|
| Archie Comic Publications, Inc. v. Ken Penders |
|---|
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York[1] |
| Argued: 201x |
| Decided: 2013-07-01 (dismissed)[1] |
| Citation(s): 1:10-CV-08858[1] |
This teeny-tiny article needs some work. You can help us by expanding it.
Archie Comic Publications, Inc. v. Ken Penders, 1:10-CV-08858, is a 2013 case in which Archie Comic Publications sued comic artist Ken Penders in response to the threat of Penders' litigation concerning his involvement in the inception of certain characters of the Sonic the Hedgehog comic series.[1]
History
In January 2009, former Archie Comics artist Ken Penders began copyrighting various stories, characters, and artwork that he created for the company's Sonic the Hedgehog comic series, with these claims being officially certified in April 2010 by the United States Copyright Office. After declaring that he would "use every legal means at my disposal to protect and preserve" his contested works, Archie Comics [filed a lawsuit against Penders in the Fall of 2010 in an attempt to retain their copyright holdings.
During this lawsuit, Penders launched his own lawsuit against Sega of America and Electronic Arts, Penders v. Sega. On September 26, 2011, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, stating that Penders could re-file the action after the conclusion of Archie v. Penders. Instead, Penders decided to re-file the same action on October 3 in the same district. On February 23, 2012, Judge Wright dismissed the case without prejudice.[2]