Jeff Jarrett and Global Force Entertainment have filed a motion seeking an interlocutory appeal, which allows a lawsuiti to move forward while a certain aspect of it is being appealed, according to a report from Mike Johnson of

The report notes that Global Force Entertainment and Jeff Jarrett are asking that the court reconsider their decision to dismiss their copyright infringement claim against Anthem, the parent company of IMPACT Wrestling. Anthem meanwhile have argued that since Global Force Entertainment and Jeff Jarrett failed to copyright and trademark their GFW Amped! TV tapes and since Jarrett provided a license for Anthem to use the tapes, there can be no infringement, while they also argued that by law, Jarrett and Global Force Entertainment should have filed their copyrights or have been refused registration in order to claim copyright infringement in court and that since neither has happened, as Jarrett did not have physical possession of the Global Force master tapes, which Anthem have admitted that they deleted, the infringement claim could not go forward in court.

The report states that in a motion filed on July 3rd, Jeff Jarrett’s attorneys noted that the court ruled “Plaintiffs have no rights under the Copyright Act, and their copyright claim will be dismissed” because GFE did not complete the registration process”.

Jarrett’s side argued the matter further stating, “It did not matter to the Court the reason the registration process could not be completed—namely, the infringers destroyed the only copy of the works-at-issue. They noted that the current law does not consider a situation where the entity infringing on the copyright “destroyed the only copy of a work before application for registration and, therefore, making registration, or refusal thereof an impossibility because no deposit copy of the original work is available through no fault of the copyright owner. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s copyright claim presents an important public policy issue regarding the deprivation of rights endowed to creators of the arts under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. The Court’s Order, and basis for the Order, signals future infringers that they may act with no fear of penalty under the Copyright Act if they destroy the only copy of the work before a copyright owner’s filing an application for registration. This is akin to giving a free pass to criminals solely because they destroy the evidence of their crimes. Second, and respectfully, the Court’s Order and Memorandum Opinion incorrectly applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Fourth Estate by holding that a lack of a registration extinguishes a copyright owners rights under the Copyright Act. The Court’s Order stated in pertinent part, “Plaintiffs have no rights under the Copyright Act, and their copyright claim will be dismissed.” Memorandum Opinion, This is incorrect because ownership and existence of a copyright are separate from an ability to sue. Under the Copyright Act, the author of an original work has exclusive rights from the moment of creation of the work. Registration of a work is purely an administrative requirement before suing to enforce those rights.”

Jarrett and Global Force Entertainment are requesting the interlocutory appeal now, because waiting for the end of the legal process could require them going back to another round of discovery and additional depositions, as well as a second trial to determine the copyright claim.