Introduction

Timeless Production FZ LLC, owner and operator of the Tekniq YouTube channel, filed suit in the N.D. Cal. against Arjan Mahil, manager of the Elite Vehicles YouTube channel alleging direct and willful copyright infringement, falsification and removal of copyright management information (17 USC 1202), unfair competition, and misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) (submitting allegedly fraudulent DMCA counternotices to YouTube). Plaintiff is represented by attorney Mohamed Othmane Samie.

Allegations in their Federal Court Complaint(s)

Timeless Productions is filing NUMEROUS (as in a massive amount) of lawsuits in the Northern District of California.

Here is a summary of allegations being made in their numerous complaints:

Direct Copyright Infringement

Defendants copied substantial portions of Plaintiff's YouTube videos without permission.

They uploaded and monetized these works on their own YouTube channel, diverting Plaintiff's viewers, subscribers, and ad revenue.

Plaintiff argues the infringement was willful and commercial, as Defendants profited through YouTube's monetization program.

Seeks statutory damages up to $150,000 per work or actual damages plus profits.

Removal and Alteration of Copyright Management Information (CMI)

Defendants allegedly stripped or altered Plaintiff's branding, watermarks, and other CMI (such as Tekniq's logos and credits).

They replaced CMI with their own branding to mislead viewers and circumvent YouTube's copyright systems.

Plaintiff claims violations under 17 U.S.C. §§1202 & 1203 (part of the DMCA).

Argues this was intentional, designed to misrepresent ownership and avoid detection.

DMCA Misrepresentation and Fraud

Defendants submitted false takedown and ownership claims to YouTube, asserting rights over Plaintiff's works.

Plaintiff alleges this was done knowingly to deceive YouTube's enforcement mechanisms and maintain monetization.

The complaint points to a pattern of fraudulent DMCA activity.

Public Display and Distribution Infringement

Beyond copying, Plaintiff alleges Defendants publicly displayed and distributed entire copyrighted works without authorization.

This direct infringement deprived Plaintiff of control over distribution and undermined the value of its works.

Unfair Competition (California Law)

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' conduct violates California's Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200).

Acts of unfair competition include:

Misappropriating Tekniq's videos to attract viewers.

Removing Tekniq's branding to pass off works as their own.

Deceptively profiting from Plaintiff's creative investments.

Plaintiff analogizes this conduct to established unfair competition cases where unauthorized commercial use of another's content was found unlawful.

Harm and Damages Claimed

Financial loss: diverted ad revenue and subscribers.

Reputational harm: dilution of Tekniq's brand, misleading viewers into believing Defendants created or were authorized to use the content.

Market harm: reduction in value of Plaintiff's works due to unauthorized circulation.

Plaintiff seeks

Statutory damages (up to $150,000 per infringed work).

Alternatively, actual damages and Defendants' profits.

Attorneys' fees and costs.

Permanent injunction ordering removal of infringing content from Defendants' YouTube channels.

Defenses?

Many of these cases involve the fair use defense and whether or not the Defendants have a legal right to use the content at issue. Fair use is a four factor test that requires careful analysis from an experienced copyright law firm. Other defenses such as having a "license" or a work being the "public domain" are other potential defenses.

What happens next?

Many copyright infringement cases settle prior to going to trial. In some cases, early settlement is possible but it is best to have your case reviewed, explore potential defenses, and then devise a game-plan to deal with your case. In some cases, where a solid defense exists, a litigant may want to file an answer and a countersuit if one exists (for example, declaratory judgement of non-infringement).