Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 15
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`JAMES CONCANNON,
`
`
`
` PLAINTIFF,
`
` -AGAINST-
`
`LEGO SYSTEMS, INC. AND LEGO A/S,
`
` DEFENDANTS.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civ. Action No. _____________
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff James Concannon, by and through his attorneys at Jayaram Law, Inc., brings this
`
`action against Defendants LEGO Systems, Inc. and LEGO A/S (collectively “LEGO”), and for his
`
`Complaint alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for copyright infringement against LEGO, the largest toy company
`
`in the world, arising from LEGO’s unauthorized copying and commercial exploitation of the work
`
`of American artist James Concannon.
`
`2.
`
`James Concannon is a multi-disciplinary artist based in Connecticut and New York.
`
`LEGO is the largest toy company in the world, with annual revenue of over $5 billion.
`
`3.
`
`In 2018, Concannon created a custom leather jacket (the “Concannon Jacket”) as a
`
`gift for Antoni Porowski, one of the stars of Netflix’s Queer Eye series and a fan of Concannon’s
`
`work. The Concannon Jacket features Concannon’s original artwork, composed and arranged in
`
`Concannon’s signature propaganda-infused aesthetic. Concannon owns the copyright in the
`
`artwork embodied in the Concannon Jacket, which is registered with the United States Copyright
`
`Office.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 15
`
`4.
`
`In September 2021, LEGO announced the release of a “Queer Eye – The Fab 5
`
`Loft” LEGO set, which is based on the Queer Eye Netflix series. The Fab 5 Loft set includes a
`
`“LEGO version” of the Concannon Jacket—in other words, a blatant copy of Concannon’s original
`
`creation. A side-by-side comparison of the Concannon Jacket and LEGO’s knockoff version (the
`
`“Infringing Product”) is depicted below:
`
`The Concannon Jacket
`
`LEGO’s Infringing Product
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 15
`
`5.
`
`Despite admitting that it intentionally copied the Concannon Jacket when it
`
`developed the Fab 5 Loft set, LEGO did not offer to compensate Concannon for copying his
`
`creation, did not ask Concannon’s permission to copy his creation, and did not give Concannon
`
`any credit when it did copy his creation. Instead, it offered to send Concannon a free Fab 5 Loft
`
`set—which retails for $99.99—for Concannon’s six-year-old son to play with, only to later revoke
`
`that offer, telling Concannon that LEGO does not give away its products for free.
`
`6.
`
`Concannon is a working artist with a serious medical condition who supports
`
`himself and a young child through his work.
`
`7.
`
`Concannon brings this action to hold LEGO accountable for its blatant disregard
`
`for his intellectual property rights and recover damages for LEGO’s willful infringement.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant LEGO Systems, Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its place of business at 555 Taylor Road, Enfield, CT 06082.
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant LEGO A/S is a private corporation with
`
`its place of business at Aastvej 1, Dk-7190, Billund, Denmark.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff James Concannon is an American citizen who resides in Connecticut.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This civil action asserts claims arising under the Copyright Laws of the United
`
`States, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`
`and 1338(a).
`
`12.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant LEGO Systems, Inc. because,
`
`on information and belief, it is a resident of this District with its principal place of business located
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 15
`
`within this District. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant LEGO A/S because, on
`
`information and belief, it continuously and systematically does business in Connecticut.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part
`
`of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, and Defendant LEGO
`
`Systems, Inc. resides in this District.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Queer Eye’s Authorized Uses of Concannon’s Work
`
`14.
`
`James Concannon is a multi-disciplinary artist who specializes in the infiltration
`
`and subversion of pop culture. Examples of Concannon’s works, featuring his distinct
`
`propaganda-inspired aesthetic, are pictured below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 15
`
`15.
`
`In June 2017, Concannon received an email from a clearance coordinator at ITV
`
`America, the producer of the new Queer Eye Netflix series, which was set to launch in early 2018.
`
`A reboot of the popular television show from the early 2000’s, Netflix’s Queer Eye would feature
`
`an all-new cast and new locations, while sticking to its predecessor’s theme of providing style and
`
`home makeovers to help transform people’s lives.
`
`16.
`
`In her 2017 email, ITV’s clearance coordinator told Concannon that one of the
`
`Queer Eye cast members, Antoni Porowski, “would love to be able to” wear three of Concannon’s
`
`custom-made “art t-shirts”—“Acid And Nancy Reagan,” “The Crank Generation,” and “Cry Me
`
`A River Phoenix”—at different times throughout the show’s first season. The email attached a
`
`release form, which Concannon signed, granting ITV America (on behalf of Netflix) the right to
`
`display Concannon’s creations on the show. The release also granted Netflix the right to display
`
`Concannon’s works in connection with the show’s advertising. A few months later, another ITV
`
`clearance coordinator reached out to Concannon, seeking his permission to add a fourth
`
`Concannon t-shirt—“James Dean Speed Queen”—to the list of works that would be featured on
`
`the show. Concannon agreed.
`
`17.
`
`Through this exchange, Concannon learned that one of Queer Eye’s new cast
`
`members, Antoni Porowski, was a fan of Concannon’s work. Concannon and Porowski connected
`
`through social media, met in person, and eventually became friends.
`
`18.
`
`Over the next couple of years, Concannon gifted several custom creations to his
`
`friend Porowski. Each time one of Concannon’s t-shirts was going to be featured on the show,
`
`Queer Eye’s producers sought Concannon’s permission and obtained a signed release specifying
`
`the work that would appear on the show and the nature of the rights being granted. Between 2017
`
`and 2021, Queer Eye’s producers continued to feature Concannon’s works on the show—and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 15
`
`continued to seek Concannon’s written permission for doing so. The only time Queer Eye did not
`
`seek Concannon’s permission to feature one of Concannon’s creations on the show was in 2018,
`
`in connection with the work that is the subject of this lawsuit.
`
`Creation of the Concannon Jacket
`
`19.
`
`In 2018, Concannon created a custom leather jacket (the “Concannon Jacket”) and
`
`gifted it to Porowski. The Concannon Jacket was created using a plain black leather jacket that
`
`Porowski sent to Concannon, to which Concannon added his original artwork, composing and
`
`arranging each artistic element to reflect his signature aesthetic. The Concannon Jacket, pictured
`
`below, is registered with the United States Copyright Office, as reflected by Reg. No.
`
`VA0002276952. See Ex. A.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Concannon delivered the Concannon Jacket to Poroswki in September 2018.
`
`The Concannon Jacket first appeared on Queer Eye in the first episode of the
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`show’s fourth season, which was released on Netflix in July 2019. However, unlike previous and
`
`subsequent instances where Concannon’s works were featured on the show, nobody contacted
`
`Concannon to request his permission to feature the Concannon Jacket on the show. Concannon
`
`figured this was simply an oversight on Netflix’s part and was not disturbed. He was happy to see
`
`his work featured on a show that, up until then, had always asked permission before displaying his
`
`works. Concannon also appreciated that Porowski often credited him as the creator of the works
`
`that appeared on the show, an acknowledgment of the talent, hard work, and creativity that went
`
`into Concannon’s creations.
`
`22.
`
`However, Concannon never granted Netflix a license to display the jacket on the
`
`show (as he had in previous instances where his works were featured on the show), and he certainly
`
`never agreed to allow LEGO—the largest toy company in the world, with over $5 billion in annual
`
`revenue—to commercially exploit his artwork for free.
`
`Yet that is exactly what LEGO did.
`
`23.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 8 of 15
`
`LEGO’s Intentional Copying of the Concannon Jacket
`
`24.
`
`On or around September 14, 2021, LEGO began marketing a new LEGO set, called
`
`“Queer Eye – The Fab 5 Loft,” based on the Queer Eye Netflix series. Upon information and
`
`belief, LEGO began selling the Fab 5 Loft set on October 1, 2021.
`
`25.
`
`The Fab 5 Loft set, which currently retails for $99.99, includes a virtually identical
`
`copy of the Concannon Jacket, as pictured below.
`
`The Concannon Jacket
`
`LEGO’s Infringing Product
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`As the above side-by-side comparison reflects, LEGO painstakingly copied not only the individual
`
`creative elements of the Concannon Jacket, but the unique placement, coordination, and
`
`arrangement of those individual artistic elements as well.
`
`26.
`
`LEGO did not seek Concannon’s permission—let alone offer to compensate
`
`Concannon—before exploiting Concannon’s original creation in the global toy market. Indeed,
`
`LEGO did not even credit Concannon as the original creator of the Concannon Jacket. It simply
`
`used it, in total disregard of Concannon’s intellectual property rights as a working artist.
`
`27.
`
`It is indisputable that LEGO developed its Infringing Product by copying the
`
`Concannon Jacket. For example, in a video that LEGO released to promote the Fab 5 Loft set,
`
`LEGO’s Senior Graphic Designer states that Antoni “has a really iconic leather jacket that we
`
`redid in LEGO version.” See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDGxA14iA7c (at 4:28). The
`
`video, which depicts the “LEGO version” of the Concannon Jacket for several seconds on screen,
`
`was posted on LEGO’s official YouTube account and has been viewed over 65,000 times.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 15
`
`28.
`
`LEGO has exploited the Concannon Jacket throughout its aggressive marketing of
`
`the Fab 5 Loft set, including on the very front of the box in which the Fab 5 Loft set is sold:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/queer-eye-the-fab-5-loft-10291?p=10291&cmp=social-
`
`n4r7lm-SHOP (last visited December 7, 2021).
`
`29.
`
`In addition to the creation, distribution, and sale of the Infringing Product
`
`throughout the world, LEGO has developed animated versions of the Concannon Jacket, which
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11 of 15
`
`LEGO has used to promote the Fab 5 Set across social media. A video posted to LEGO’s official
`
`Twitter page depicts the Concannon Jacket in animated form:
`
`
`
`
`
`See https://twitter.com/LEGO_Group/status/1437733080106782722?s=20 (last visited December
`
`7, 2021). The video has been viewed over 228,000 times.
`
`LEGO’s Unwillingness to Accept Responsibility for Its Infringement
`
`30. When Concannon learned of LEGO’s infringement of the Concannon Jacket, he
`
`immediately reached out to the company. After several calls to LEGO’s customer service line to
`
`inquire about the company’s use of his work, Concannon was told that LEGO “loves creators” and
`
`the switchboard operator offered to send him a free Fab 5 Loft set for his six-year-old son to play
`
`with. When the set never arrived, Concannon called back and was told that the operator had made
`
`a mistake, and that LEGO does not give away its sets for free.
`
`31.
`
`Concannon’s supporters encouraged him to find an attorney. Through undersigned
`
`counsel, Concannon eventually sent a cease-and-desist letter to LEGO in which he demanded that
`
`LEGO take seriously his intellectual property rights as a working artist.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 15
`
`32.
`
`Concannon hoped that perhaps LEGO had made an honest mistake, copied his work
`
`without realizing Concannon retained all copyrights in the Concannon Jacket, and would offer to
`
`compensate Concannon or pay him a reasonable royalty that he could use to support his family
`
`and manage his type 1 diabetes, which requires him to rely on an insulin pump.
`
`33.
`
`Instead, lawyers for the company told Concannon’s attorney that if Concannon
`
`brought a case against LEGO it would be an “uphill battle” arguing, in effect, that by gifting the
`
`Concannon Jacket to his friend Porowski knowing that Porowski would wear the jacket on Queer
`
`Eye, Concannon was granting an “implied license” to Netflix to use the jacket in any manner it
`
`pleased—including sub-licensing the work to LEGO, the largest toy company in the world, so that
`
`LEGO could mass-produce the work for the global toy market and retain all the profits for itself.
`
`34.
`
`Lawyers for the company also noted that they had listened to Concannon’s recorded
`
`calls with LEGO’s customer service team and insultingly suggested that Concannon was only
`
`asserting his legal rights after the fact because he was upset that he never received his free LEGO
`
`set in the mail.
`
`35.
`
`LEGO’s response to Concannon’s demand ignores basic principles of U.S.
`
`Copyright Law and demonstrates that LEGO cares more about its bottom line than the working
`
`artists who supply the creative lifeblood for industries like the one that LEGO dominates.
`
`36.
`
`Concannon brings this action to hold LEGO accountable for its shameful theft of
`
`Concannon’s intellectual property and to recover damages for LEGO’s willful infringement.
`
`COUNT I:
`COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`(17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 13 of 15
`
`38.
`
`By their actions alleged above, Defendants have infringed and will continue to
`
`infringe upon Plaintiff’s copyrights in the Concannon Jacket (Reg. No. VA0002276952) including
`
`by, among other things, copying, publicly displaying, distributing, and creating derivative works
`
`of the Infringing Product, which is substantially similar to, derive from and a derivative of
`
`Plaintiff’s original artwork and design, without any authorization or other permission from
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`39.
`
`As alleged herein, Defendants had access to Plaintiff’s original artwork and design
`
`before Defendants commenced their acts of infringement.
`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights
`
`has been deliberate, willful, and in utter disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants will continue to realize unjust profits, gains, and advantages as a
`
`proximate result of their infringement if such infringement is permitted to continue. Moreover, to
`
`the extent the infringement may cease, Defendants will continue to realize just profits, gains, and
`
`advantages by having initially attracted and secured consumers through their act of infringement.
`
`42.
`
`As a direct and proximate results of Defendants’ willful copyright infringement,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss to his business, reputation, and
`
`goodwill. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages he has sustained and will
`
`sustain, and any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by Defendants because of their act of
`
`infringement and use, publication, and distribution of the copied artwork and design. At present,
`
`the amount of such damages, gains, profits, and advantages cannot be fully ascertained by the
`
`Plaintiff but will be established according to proof at trial.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff is also entitled to recover from Defendants statutory damages and
`
`attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ willful infringement of his copyright.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 15
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff is further entitled to an injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents
`
`and employees, and all persons acting in concert or participation with it, from engaging in any
`
`further such acts in violation of the Copyright Act.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment
`
`against Defendants, and grant the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`For a declaration that Defendants have infringed upon Plaintiff’s copyright in the
`
`Concannon Jacket;
`
`For a declaration that Defendants must render a full and complete accounting to
`
`Plaintiff for Defendants’ profits, gains, advantages, or the value of business
`
`opportunities received from the foregoing acts of infringement;
`
`For an award of damages for all damages suffered by the Plaintiff and for any
`
`profits or gain by Defendants attributable to infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights
`
`in amounts to be determined at trial;
`
`For a declaration that Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights was
`
`willful;
`
`For an award of statutory damages to Plaintiff based upon Defendants’ willful
`
`acts of infringement pursuant to Copyright Laws, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq;
`
`For an award to Plaintiff of their reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs
`
`incurred in this action under 17 U.S.C. § 505;
`
`For an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and,
`
`For any such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01678-OAW Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 15 of 15
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Concannon demands trial by jury for all issues that are so triable.
`
`DATED: December 17, 2021
`
`
`
`BY:
`
`/s/ Steven Coyle .
`Steven Coyle (CT 21039)
`Nicholas Geiger (CT 28060)
`Katherine Tassmer (CT 31098)
`scoyle@cantorcolburn.com
`ngeiger@cantorcolburn.com
`ktassmer@cantorcolburn.com
`CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Telephone: (860) 286-2929
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Vivek Jayaram (pro hac vice pending)
`Zahreen Ghaznavi (pro hac vice pending)
`Michael Nosanchuk (pro hac vice pending)
`vivek@jayaramlaw.com
`zahreen@jayaramlaw.com
`mnosanchuk@jayaramlaw.com
`JAYARAM LAW, INC.
`142 West 57th Street
`11th Floor
`New York, New York 10019
`Telephone: (212) 287-5638
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`James Concannon
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`