is best left for a trial on the merits. Summary judgment on this issue is not appropriate at this stage. This alone, however, suffices to defeat Plaintiffs' motion.
- B. Equitable Estoppel[1]
Equitable estoppel works "to deny a party the right to plead or prove an otherwise important fact -- here, the act of infringement -- because of something he has done or omitted to do." Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Hearst/ABC Viacom Entertainment Svcs., Inc., 746 F. Supp. 320, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Estoppel requires proof that (1) plaintiffs had knowledge of defendants' infringing conduct; (2) plaintiffs intended that defendants rely on plaintiffs' conduct, or plaintiffs acted in such a manner that defendants had a right to believe they were intended to rely on the conduct; (3) defendants were ignorant of the true facts; and (4) defendants did, in fact, rely to their detriment. See id.; Lottie Joplin Thomas Trust v. Crown Publishers, Inc., 456 F. Supp. 531, 534 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), aff'd 592 F.2d 651 (2d Cir. 1978). Defendants may prevail on their estoppel defense only if they can prove a reasonable and justifiable belief that plaintiffs gave them permission to copy. See Merchant v. Lymon, 828 F. Supp. 1048, 1064
- ↑ The separate defense of "factual estoppel" particular to copyright law has been considered above, in the section addressing originality.
45
