## Facts

- P & D International, a Cayman Islands corporation, created an original audiovisual work about St. Thomas (the “St. Thomas Film”) before August 1980.
- The film was exhibited on Cunard cruise ships about 80 times per year during 1981–1983 under an arrangement with Cunard’s advertising agency, under which P & D paid a per-cruise fee.
- After the arrangement ended in 1983, P & D requested return of all film copies; Cunard returned copies but allegedly continued showing the film.
- P & D alleged Cunard copied the film in Florida without authorization and continued to exploit it on cruises en route to St. Thomas.
- P & D also alleged Halsey and Cunard created and showed a new film that copied substantial parts of the St. Thomas Film.
- P & D sued for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation.

## Issues

1. Whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under the Copyright Act when the complaint alleges domestic copying in Florida but much exhibition occurred outside U.S. territorial waters on cruise ships.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged infringing acts and related claims to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
3. Whether parts of defendants’ reply should be stricken, or whether the court should allow discovery time based on arguments allegedly resembling summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied Cunard’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Halsey’s joinder was likewise denied.
- The court held the complaint adequately alleged domestic infringing conduct (including copying in Florida), sufficient at the pleading stage to invoke federal jurisdiction and state a claim.
- The court denied P & D’s motion to strike and its alternative request for additional discovery or related relief.

## Legal Principles

- The Copyright Act may be invoked where at least one predicate act of infringement is plausibly alleged to have occurred within the United States.
- Allegations of unauthorized copying within the United States can support federal jurisdiction even if subsequent exploitation or public performance occurs largely outside U.S. territory.
- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true and does not require evidentiary detail proving jurisdictional facts or infringement.
- A court may decline to strike reply arguments or convert a motion to dismiss into summary judgment absent a basis to treat the filing as a Rule 56 motion.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the case to proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged domestic copying in Florida—an infringing act sufficient to support federal copyright jurisdiction and to state claims at the pleading stage—while denying ancillary efforts to strike reply materials or obtain early discovery-related relief.


P & D Int’l v. Halsey Publ’g Co., 672 F. Supp. 1429 (S.D. Fla. 1987)