512(f) Claim Sent to Trial (Which Didn’t Happen)–Leszczynski v. Kitchen Cube

[My standard lament that Westlaw’s indexing of Central District of California cases is unusually laggy.]

Tomas Leszczynski claimed to have created the Bakercube Measuring Cube. He posted the 3D printing instructions for the cube to the Internet, subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial No Derivatives License. He then objected to Amazon merchants selling the cube, so he targeted them with takedown notices to Amazon. The merchants counternoticed to Amazon per 512(g)(3). Leszczynski then sued the merchants.

I’ll focus only on the merchants’ 512(f) counterclaims for his takedown notices to Amazon. The court denies the merchants’ summary judgment motions for their 512(f) claims, greenlighting the matter to a trial.

The court summarizes: “there is very little evidence that Leszczynski knowingly misrepresented the status of his copyright or anything else in his take-down notices.”

The merchants pointed to the fact that the Copyright Office denied registration for his 3D printing instructions. However, that development took place after he sent the takedown notices, so the subsequent registration denial didn’t prove his state of mind at time of sending. The court excuses his failure to retract the takedown demands after the registration denial, saying 512(f) doesn’t require the sender to update their takedown notices in response to new developments.

Although the court is pretty clearly signalling that Leszczynski is likely to defeat the 512(f) claim, the court wasn’t ready to let Leszczynski off the hook. He initially claimed that he consulted an attorney about the merits of his copyright claim, but then this exchange took place in his deposition:

Q: [W]ithout telling me anything that you may have asked of or communications you received from any attorney, did you ever consult an attorney with respect to this case?

A: You have to define “consult.”

Q: Okay….Obviously you had a claim or claims and you decided to file the lawsuit. Prior to filing the lawsuit, did you discuss the substance of your claims in any meaningful detail with any attorneys? Just yes or no, please.

A: I don’t believe — in very rough terms. We are talking about two-minute conversations.

Q: Okay. So you had a brief conversation with an attorney, but nothing beyond that with regard to your potential case at that time?

A: That is correct.

Q: Okay. And did you ever hire that attorney?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Okay. Since filing the case, have you consulted with any attorneys about it?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever consulted with an attorney about any of your efforts to secure intellectual property protection? By that, I mean somebody to help you with trademark filing or copyright filings, or anything of that nature.

A: No.

The court says this exchange is enough to keep the 512(f) claim alive:

based on the fact that Leszczynski admits to have spoken (at least briefly) with an attorney, and that Leszczynski made statements about that conversation that could be described as inconsistent (as he initially stated that the attorney confirmed the validity of his claims, and later stated the conversation was only very brief and “rough”), a jury could conclude that Leszczynski either knew or was willfully blind to the fact that he was not the valid owner of a copyright

[Protip: if the call lasted 2 minutes and the attorney didn’t charge you for it, you did not “consult” an attorney. Two minutes of “free” information from an attorney shouldn’t count as legal advice.]

This ruling came out in April, so I’m sure you’re wondering if the trial happened and how it went. The parties settled the case soon after this ruling, so they wisely spared the expense of trial. However, that left unresolved the question of how a jury would have ruled on these facts. It’s impossible to say who “won” here, but this non-result ultimately ranks as another 512(f) case that didn’t succeed in court.

Case Citation: Leszczynski v. Kitchen Cube, LLC, 2025 WL 2551098 (C.D. Cal. April 4, 2025)

Prior Posts on Section 512(f)

* 512(f) Doesn’t Support Preliminary Injunction–BViral v. TheSoul * In 512(f), the “F” Stands for “Futility”–Shaffer v. Kavarnos * Does Anyone Still Care About NFTs? (Yuga Labs, LLC v. Ripps) — Guest Blog Post * Viral DRM Awarded Damages for Its 512(f) Claims, But At What Cost? * Big YouTube Channel Gets TRO Against Being Targeted by DMCA Copyright Takedown Notices–Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps * The Competition Between Temu and Shein Moves Into a Courtroom–Whaleco v. Shein * Copyright Battles Over City Council Videos * Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG * Plaintiffs Make Some Progress in 512(f) Cases * 512(f) Doesn’t Restrict Competitive Gaming of Search Results–Source Capital v. Barrett Financial * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox * Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps * You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas * 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless * Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA * 11th Circuit UPHOLDS a 512(f) Plaintiff Win on Appeal–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports * Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus * A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! –Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. This Old Gal * 512(f) Claim Against Robo-Notice Sender Can Proceed–Enttech v. Okularity * Copyright Plaintiffs Can’t Figure Out What Copyrights They Own, Court Says ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ * A 512(f) Case Leads to a Rare Damages Award (on a Default Judgment)–California Beach v. Du * 512(f) Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss–Brandyn Love v. Nuclear Blast America * 512(f) Claim Fails in the 11th Circuit–Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center * Court Orders Rightsowner to Withdraw DMCA Takedown Notices Sent to Amazon–Beyond Blond v. Heldman * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? (Spoiler: Not Well) * Another Section 512(f) Case Fails–ISE v. Longarzo * Another 512(f) Case Fails–Handshoe v. Perret * A DMCA Section 512(f) Case Survives Dismissal–ISE v. Longarzo * DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law Claims–Stevens v. Vodka and Milk * Section 512(f) Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss–Johnson v. New Destiny Church * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Klein * 9th Circuit Sides With Fair Use in Dancing Baby Takedown Case–Lenz v. Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Steiner * Vague Takedown Notice Targeting Facebook Page Results in Possible Liability–CrossFit v. Alvies * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Tuteur v. Crosley-Corcoran * 17 USC 512(f) Is Dead–Lenz v. Universal Music * 512(f) Plaintiff Can’t Get Discovery to Back Up His Allegations of Bogus Takedowns–Ouellette v. Viacom * Updates on Transborder Copyright Enforcement Over “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”–Shropshire v. Canning * 17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices–Amaretto v. Ozimals * 17 USC 512(f) Claim Against “Twilight” Studio Survives Motion to Dismiss–Smith v. Summit Entertainment * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. UMG * Copyright Takedown Notice Isn’t Actionable Unless There’s an Actual Takedown–Amaretto v. Ozimals * Second Life Ordered to Stop Honoring a Copyright Owner’s Takedown Notices–Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals * Another Copyright Owner Sent a Defective Takedown Notice and Faced 512(f) Liability–Rosen v. HSI * Furniture Retailer Enjoined from Sending eBay VeRO Notices–Design Furnishings v. Zen Path * Disclosure of the Substance of Privileged Communications via Email, Blog, and Chat Results in Waiver — Lenz v. Universal * YouTube Uploader Can’t Sue Sender of Mistaken Takedown Notice–Cabell v. Zimmerman * Rare Ruling on Damages for Sending Bogus Copyright Takedown Notice–Lenz v. Universal * 512(f) Claim Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds–Project DoD v. Federici * Biosafe-One v. Hawks Dismissed * Michael Savage Takedown Letter Might Violate 512(f)–Brave New Media v. Weiner * Fair Use – It’s the Law (for what it’s worth)–Lenz v. Universal * Copyright Owner Enjoined from Sending DMCA Takedown Notices–Biosafe-One v. Hawks * New(ish) Report on 512 Takedown Notices * Can 512(f) Support an Injunction? Novotny v. Chapman * Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. MGA Entertainment

The post 512(f) Claim Sent to Trial (Which Didn’t Happen)–Leszczynski v. Kitchen Cube appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.