Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 12

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DOC#: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
'i

jllATEFILED: 11.i.2. 2..ollo

-----------------------------------x

\...

WORLD CHESS US, INC. and WORLD

CHESS EVENTS LTD.,

16 Civ. $629 (VM)

Plaintiffs,
DECISION AND ORDER

against
CHESSGAMES SERVICES LLC, E-LEARNING:
LTD., and LOGICAL THINKING LTD.,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------x
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.

Plaintiffs World Chess US,

Ltd.

Inc. and World Chess Events

(collectively, "World Chess") filed a complaint in this

Court

defendants

against

Chessgames

(" Chessgames") , E-Learning Ltd.

Thinking

(together

Ltd.

(collectively,

LLC

( "E-Learning") , and Logical

with

"Defendants").

Services

E-Learning,

The

complaint

"Chess24")
alleges

(1)

misappropriation of "hot news" and (2) breach of contract or,

in the alternative,

tortious interference with contractual

relations.
World Chess filed a motion for a temporary restraining
order

and

preliminary

injunction,

seeking

to

prevent

Defendants from publishing updates regarding the 2016 World

Chess Championship Match ("Championship") while the games are
in progress. The motion was supported by a memorandum of law
dated November

7,

2016.

("Memorandum,"

Dkt.

No.

16.)

The

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 12

Championship was scheduled to commence in New York City on

November 11, 2016 and continue through November 30, 2016. On
November 10, Chess24 filed its Memorandum of Law in Opposition
to World Chess's Motion.
The

Court

held

("Opposition," Dkt. No. 11.)

preliminary

injunction

hearing

on

November 10, 2016, at which it heard oral argument from World

Chess and Chess24. 1

("Preliminary Injunction Hearing," Dkt.

Minute Entry for Nov.

10,

2016).

For the reasons stated by

the Court at the conclusion of the Preliminary Injunction

Hearing and the reasons stated below,

World Chess's motion

for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

World Chess, a British Virgin Islands corporation with

its

principal

place

of

business

in

New

York,

organizes

championship-level chess tournaments and sells tickets for

admission to its live tournament events.
maintains
webcasts
things,

a
of

website
tournament

on

which

games

it

World Chess also

distributes

and commentary,

to website subscribers.

real-time

among other

(Memorandum, at 1-2.) World

Chess is the organizer of the Championship.

1
At the time of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Chessgames had not
yet secured legal counsel and therefore did not participate in the
hearing. (See "November 10 Letter," Dkt. No. 13.)

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 12

Chess24, a Gibraltar corporation,

is the operator of a

website providing chess-oriented content,

including,

among

other things, a "live broadcast" of matches from major events

and accompanying commentary.
suggest

may

designation

(Opposition,

at 5.)

While the

otherwise,

Chess24's

"live

broadcasts" do not consist of "video feeds of the players of

the

chess

games

themselves"

but

rather

of

"computer-

generated 'virtual' chess board" on which Chess24 displays a

chess

player's

moves

as

the

live

game

progresses.

(Id.)

Chess24 also reports on live games by displaying a series of

alphanumeric

characters

corresponding

to

specific

chess

moves, and by providing running commentary from chess experts

as

to the matches'

progress.

(See

Id.,

at 5-6;

"McGourty

Declaration," Dkt. No. 12, at 4-5.)

The previous World Chess Championship, which was held
in 2014,

was organized by World Chess and reported on by

Chess24 in the manner described above without issue between

the parties. (See Opposition, at 7.) Following the March 2016
"Candidates
initiated

Tournament,"
litigation

an

affiliate

against

Chess24

of
in

World

Moscow

Chess
seeking

monetary and injunctive relief alleging Chess24 engaged in

unfair
players'

competition

by

chess moves.

reporting

on

On October 25,

and

broadcasting

2016,

the

the Commercial

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 12

Court of Moscow held a hearing in the matter and denied World

Chess relief.

(See id., at 7-8.)

On November 7, World Chess filed the comglaint in this

alleging

Chessgames

and

Chess24

against

action

(1) misappropriation of "hot news" and (2) breach of contract

or,

in

contractual relations.

with

interference

tortious

alternative,

the

The complaint also seeks to require

third party service providers to take any actions necessary

to block the Defendants' websites from continuing to operate
should

Defendants

fail

restraining order.
relief

"to

to

Final9..y,

confirm

the

comply

with

World Chess

the

seeks

enforceability

of

temporary
declaratory

World

Chess's

website and admission ticket terms and conditions and that

the

defendants'

violation

of

retransmission

one

or

both

of

of

the

these

chess

moves

contracts

constitutes actionable misappropriation."

is

and

in

also

("Complaint," Dkt.

No. 1, at 2.)
Together with the Complaint,

World Chess also filed a

Motion seeking an order to prohibit Chess24 from republishing

updates of each game at the Championship while the matches
are in progress. World Chess argues that, as the organizer of
the Championship,
rights

to

themselves.

stage

it "has obtained exclusive access to and

and

disseminate

the

[chess]

moves"

(Memorandum, at 13-14.) Accordingly, World Chess

4

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 5 of 12

argues

Chess24' s

contestants"

"reproduction

constitutes

moves
of

made
the

by

chess

(Id., at 13, 21.)

Chess24 argues that tije information

on which it seeks to report,

moves,

the

"misappropriation

moves" and should be enjoined.

In its Opposition,

of

including the chess players'

consists of factual data that will be in the public

domain by the time of Chess24's reports and commentary.

Opposition,

at

6.)

Chess24 maintains

that

(See

it will not be

copying (or pirating) any content prepared by World Chess and

"nothing will be published on the Chess24 Website before it
is made public from some other source." (Id., at 5-6.) Rather,
Chess24 states that it intends to gather its website content
of the Championship chess moves not from any agents attending
and reporting on the matches, but from a variety of secondary
sources

that

are

publicly

available,

including

the

broadcasting of the Championship on Norwegian television and

from

third-party websites,

Twitter.

such as posts

on Facebook and

(See id.) Chess24 contends that it will then project

the players' moves onto a virtual chess board of Chess24's

creation; make alphanumeric notations of the moves in a manner
commonly

understood

in

the

sport;

and

provide

their

subscribers with detailed written and video commentary about

the Championship.

(See id., at 4-5.)

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 6 of 12

II.

DISCUSSION

A. LEGAL STANDARD
The district court has wide discretion in determining
whether to grant a preliminary injunction.

Enter. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60,

Grand River
66

(2d Cir.

2007) (per curiam) (citations omitted). However, a preliminary

injunction "is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that
should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing,
carries

the

burden

of

persuasion."

Id.

at 66

(internal

quotation marks omitted) . 2

A

party

demonstrate "(1)
merits or

(b)

seeking

either

(a)

preliminary

injunction

must

a likelihood of success on the

sufficiently serious questions going to the

merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance

of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant's favor, and (2)
irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction." Faiveley
Transport Mahno AB v.
Cir. 2009)

Wabtec Corp.,

559 F.3d 110,

116

(2d

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

B. APPLICATION
The Court finds that World Chess has failed to make a
sufficient showing that it is entitled to injunctive relief.

The legal standards governing preliminary injunctions and temporary

restraining orders are the same. See AFA Dispensing Group B. V. v.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 740 F. Supp. 2d 465, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
2

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 7 of 12

First,

World

Chess

has

failed

to

demonstrate

redistrib~tion

Defendants would be pirating, by live

that

on their

websites, the reports of chess moves that World Chess would

produce

and distribute.

The

Court

is

not

persuaded

that

Chess24 would be taking content from World Chess and merely

"free-riding" or republishing the information for Chess24's
own subscribers.
that

digests

Chess24

Championship

Rather,

from

the

evidence presented indicates

information

factual

secondary

sources

website content at great expense.

Second,

and

the

about

creates

its

own

(See Opposition, at 4-5.)

World Chess must show that it is more likely

than not to prevail should this action be tried in court.

See AFA Dispensing Grp. B.V., 740 F. Supp. 2d at 473. World
Chess has not met its burden. World Chess relies on the Second
Circuit's

decision

Motorola,

Inc.,

proposition

Basketball
news"

National

105 F.3d 841,

that

misappropriation.

in

Defendants
However,

Association

Basketball

845
are

as

(2d Cir.
liable

Chess24

expressly

misappropriation argument.

Association
1997),
for

rejected

the

Specifically,

for the

"hot

contends,

v.

news"

National

NBA' s
the

"hot

Second

Circuit "held that the NBA could not prevent Motorola from
attending and watching basketball games and selling play-byplay accounts of the game to its mobile customers." 105 F.3d
at 846.

In pertinent part,

the Second Circuit found that:

7

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 8 of 12

expend [s]

"Motorola

their

own

resources

to

collect

purely factual information generated in NBA games to transmit

to SportsTrax pagers. They have their own network and assemble
and transmit data themselves." Id. at 854.
in

Similarly,

Theflyonthewall.com,

Inc.,

v.

Inc.

Capital

Barclays

financial services firms brought

suit against an Internet-based subscription news aggregation

service alleging "hot news"
infringement

as

to

misappropriation and copyright

their

securities

recommendations.

Plaintiffs argued that the defendant's republication of their

securities

recommendations

before

they

were

known

to

the

public constituted "hot news" misappropriation. See 650 F.3d

876

(2d Cir.

holding

that

2011).
the

The Second Circuit dismissed the case,

"hot 'news"

misappropriation

claim

was

preempted by federal copyright law and that the defendant was

not "free riding" on the plaintiffs' efforts, but rather were
collecting,
securities

summarizing,

and

disseminating

recommendations

"through

news

of

the

substantial

organization effort." Id. at 905.

Based on a review of the evidence in this case, the Court
finds no material difference between the facts presented here
and those at issue in National Basketball Association and
Barclays Capital Inc .. As an initial matter, the Court is not
persuaded

that

World

Chess
8

alone

can

report

on

the

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 9 of 12

Championship game scores. Indeed, it is well-established that

sports

scores

Championship,
Nat'l

and
are

Basketball

events,
facts

in

the

not protectable by copyright.

See

Ass'n.,

like

105 F.3d

players'

at

moves

946.

Further,

the

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

evidence

presented

here

shows

has

Chess24

expended

considerable resources and hired employees to collect from

secondary sources, analyze, and project factual information
about the Championship,
(Opoosition,

at

5;

among other things,

McGourty

to its users.

Declaration,

at

7.)

Like

Motorola's SportsTrax pager, Chess24's virtual chessboard and

compilation

of

players'

moves

display

Chess24 has "assemble[d] and transmit[ted]

factual

data

that

. . . themselves."

Nat'l Basketball Ass'n., 105 F.3d at 854.

Third,

" [a]

showing of irreparable harm is the single

most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary

injunction." Faiveley Transport Mahno AB,

559 F.3d at 116.

"To satisfy the irreparable harm requirement, Plaintiffs must

demonstrate that absent a preliminary injunction they will
suffer an injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but
actual and imminent,

and one that cannot be remedied if a

court waits until the end of trial to resolve the harm." Grand
River Enter. Six Nations, Ltd., 481 F.3d at 66.
Here, World Chess has failed to show that it would suffer
an immediate injury that cannot be remedied by money damages
9

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 10 of 12

after trial. Even assuming World Chess is correct that - in

the absence of relief - Defendants' reproduction of the chess
moves made by the contestants in the Championship devalues
World Chess's website product and threatens the existence of
its website, World Chess has provided no basis for concluding
that it cannot be sufficiently compensated by money damages.
The alleged injury here - that a rival website operated by
Defendants

may

supplant

some

in-person

subscribership to World Chess's website type

of

loss

compensable

by money

ticket

sales

and

is precisely the

damages.

Moreover,

as

Chess24 indicates, World Chess licenses "to various websites

the right to report on the [Championship] in real time, thus
implicitly conceding that any injury is fully compensable by
monetary damages (i.e. lost licensing fees)."

(Opposition, at

3. )

Fourth, World Chess has failed to show that the balance

of equities tips decidedly in its favor. World Chess argues
that

"absent

preliminary

injunction

with

temporary

restraining order, World Chess will likely lose a substantial

number of subscribers and lose its goodwill as the party with
exclusive control over dissemination of Championship updates
and organizer of the Championship."

(Memorandum, at 20.) By

contrast,

will

Chess24

argues

that

it

lose

revenue

and

reputation if prevented from reporting on the Championship.

10

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 11 of 12

On balance,

the Court agrees with Chess24 that the public

interest is best served by the robust reporting of factual

data

concerning

the

contestants'

moves

accompanied

by

analysis and commentary on the Championship.

Having found that World Chess has failed to establish
that

it

satisfies

the

requirements

for

preliminary

injunction, the Court is persuaded that Defendants should be

permitted to report on the Championship while this action is
pending.
III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs World Chess us,

Inc.

and

Chess")

World

for a

Chess

Events

Ltd.

(collectively,

"World

temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunctive relief prohibiting defendants Chessgames Services

LLC

("Chessgames"),

Logical Thinking Ltd.

E-Learning

Ltd.

("E-Learning"),

(together with E-Learning,

and

"Chess24")

(collectively, "Defendants") from republishing the updates of

each game at the World Chess Championship ("Championship") in

11

Case 1:16-cv-08629-VM Document 21 Filed 11/22/16 Page 12 of 12

New York City from November 11,

2016 to November 30,

while the game is in progress is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

New York, New York

22 November 2016

12

2016,