A former UCLA basketball player is suing the NCAA over its use of former student athletes' images in DVDs, video games, photographs, apparel and other material.
In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday, Ed O'Bannon alleges the NCAA illegally has athletes sign away their rights to the commercial use of their images and does not share any of the proceeds from their use with former athletes.
"While the NCAA, its member conferences and schools, and its for-profit business partners reap millions of dollars from revenue streams ..., former student athletes whose likenesses are utilized to generate those profit centers receive no compensation whatsoever," the suit claims.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and calls on the NCAA to pay the former athletes what it has allegedly made from the use of their images. That amount has yet to be determined, said Megan Jones, a partner with the law firm of Hausfeld LLP, which is representing O'Bannon.
It also seeks an injunction on behalf of current student athletes barring the NCAA from licensing the rights to their images.
"There has been an awakening in the former student athletes," Jones said. "They are seeing their images and likenesses in more places now than ever before."
Bob Williams, a spokesman for the NCAA, declined to comment on the suit, saying the NCAA had yet to review it. As soon as they stop counting all of the cash they make on the backs of these athletes they intend to look over the allegations.
"However, the NCAA categorically denies any infringement on former or current student athlete likeness rights," he said.
The lawsuit, which also names the NCAA's licensing representative, the Collegiate Licensing Company, seeks class action status on behalf of former NCAA Division I basketball and football players.
As former NCAA athletes ourselves, we’ll be watching this one closely.
The Trademark Company
Thursday, July 23, 2009
He Fought the Law and the ... The Law Won
Lifelong resident Eric Ellebracht wanted to get a tattoo of his city’s seal, but a 2000 law won't allow the trademark sailboat to be inked on his arm.
"It's like the people who have the 'I'm a Melbourne resident and I'm proud of it' bumper sticker on their car," the 45-year-old said. "I'm just taking that to a little bit of an extreme."
Undeterred by the city manager's rejection of his request, Ellebracht said he hoped to convince leaders to develop a design for city-approved body art that diehard residents could buy.
He said he plans to present his idea during public comment at tonight's city council meeting.
Ellebracht routinely speaks during council meetings -- at times critical of the city. He said he was inspired to get the seal tattooed on his arm after he said he saw city workers with tattoos honoring the fire and police departments.
The seal is a yellow sailboat circled by a blue band with the city's name, its nickname, "The Harbor City" and 1969, the year it merged with Eau Gallie.
City spokesman Michael Moore said the council's intent was for the city seal to be used only for official documents.
Private individuals have to get the city manager's permission before using the seal. A separate state law makes using a government seal without permission a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine or 60 days in jail.
"At the code level, it's perfectly clear what the intent of the seal is and that is not Mr. Ellebracht's purpose," he said.
Melbourne more often uses its logo, which is the sailboat with "The City of Melbourne" written next to it, on items like stationary, signs and vehicles, Moore said. Citizens also need city manager approval to use the logo.
Ellebracht said he plans on going ahead with a tattoo, but will change the design so it's not an exact copy of the seal.
He wants the city to consider appointing a voluntary committee to select a design that could be sold for about $50.
"I'm going to float the idea as a way to produce revenue," he said. "It doesn't make sense for the city to turn their back on any stream."
The Trademark Company
"It's like the people who have the 'I'm a Melbourne resident and I'm proud of it' bumper sticker on their car," the 45-year-old said. "I'm just taking that to a little bit of an extreme."
Undeterred by the city manager's rejection of his request, Ellebracht said he hoped to convince leaders to develop a design for city-approved body art that diehard residents could buy.
He said he plans to present his idea during public comment at tonight's city council meeting.
Ellebracht routinely speaks during council meetings -- at times critical of the city. He said he was inspired to get the seal tattooed on his arm after he said he saw city workers with tattoos honoring the fire and police departments.
The seal is a yellow sailboat circled by a blue band with the city's name, its nickname, "The Harbor City" and 1969, the year it merged with Eau Gallie.
City spokesman Michael Moore said the council's intent was for the city seal to be used only for official documents.
Private individuals have to get the city manager's permission before using the seal. A separate state law makes using a government seal without permission a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine or 60 days in jail.
"At the code level, it's perfectly clear what the intent of the seal is and that is not Mr. Ellebracht's purpose," he said.
Melbourne more often uses its logo, which is the sailboat with "The City of Melbourne" written next to it, on items like stationary, signs and vehicles, Moore said. Citizens also need city manager approval to use the logo.
Ellebracht said he plans on going ahead with a tattoo, but will change the design so it's not an exact copy of the seal.
He wants the city to consider appointing a voluntary committee to select a design that could be sold for about $50.
"I'm going to float the idea as a way to produce revenue," he said. "It doesn't make sense for the city to turn their back on any stream."
The Trademark Company
Friday, July 17, 2009
Michael Jackson: It's Gotta Be the Shoes Money!
In the wake of Michael Jackson's untimely demise we are learning more and more about the man and that not only was he the King of Pop but also a pretty nifty inventor as well.
Who of us recalls the video from the 80s for Smooth Criminal? This is the video in which MJ, in unison with his back-up dancers, liens forward after planting his feet into the ground to an angle which we can only assume is some special effect in the video. We are only now finding out it was no special effect!
No wires. No digitally enhanced frames. Just MJ and his patented shoes. Yes, you heard me correctly, he patented a type of shoe. Gotta be the shoes, money!
In short, he co-invented a system for allowing a shoe wearer to lean forwardly beyond his center of gravity by virtue of wearing a specially designed pair of shoes which engaged or clipped into a hitch member in the stage surface.
How cool is that. So while the rest of the world thought he was just doing it through special effects or otherwise like a great illusionist MJ was actually doing it - with specially designed stage equipment we simply never knew about.
We know this is not a trademark issue. It is a brethren patent matter. But it was just too cool not to share.
The Trademark Company
Who of us recalls the video from the 80s for Smooth Criminal? This is the video in which MJ, in unison with his back-up dancers, liens forward after planting his feet into the ground to an angle which we can only assume is some special effect in the video. We are only now finding out it was no special effect!
No wires. No digitally enhanced frames. Just MJ and his patented shoes. Yes, you heard me correctly, he patented a type of shoe. Gotta be the shoes, money!
In short, he co-invented a system for allowing a shoe wearer to lean forwardly beyond his center of gravity by virtue of wearing a specially designed pair of shoes which engaged or clipped into a hitch member in the stage surface.
How cool is that. So while the rest of the world thought he was just doing it through special effects or otherwise like a great illusionist MJ was actually doing it - with specially designed stage equipment we simply never knew about.
We know this is not a trademark issue. It is a brethren patent matter. But it was just too cool not to share.
The Trademark Company
Friday, July 10, 2009
Drifting Along ...
For over a decade, Faye Treadwell (“Treadwell”), widow of the late music executive George Treadwell, and Larry Marshak (“Marshak”), a promoter of various doo-wop groups, have fought tooth and nail over the rights to use the trademark of “The Drifters,” the legendary singing group.
The dispute in this case centers on the trademark rights to The Drifters , a popular singing group from the 1950s and 1960s.1 The Drifters first appeared in 1953 and came under the management of George Treadwell the following year. George Treadwell hired and paid the individual performers as employees, replacing them frequently. For nearly two decades, The Drifters as an entity persisted, though the membership of the group was constantly in flux. George Treadwell passed away in 1959, and his wife, Faye Treadwell, took over management of the group.
By 1970, The Drifters had largely ceased to perform in the United States, although their songs were still played on the radio. Marshak, an editor for a rock magazine, saw this as an opportunity. Working with CBS Radio, which had shifted to an “oldies” format, Marshak reunited some of the former members o f the group – those who had been replaced over the years by the Treadwells – for a series of reunion concerts. Capitalizing on the success of these concerts, Marshak signed the former members to exclusive management contracts and began marketing them as “The Drifters.”
Over the next three decades, Marshak continued marketing The Drifters in the United States. His efforts at promotion were occasionally interrupted by trademark infringement litigation – Faye Treadwell sued Marshak, and Marshak in turn sued other Drifters promoters – but these lawsuits were often inconclusive.
The case recently came before the Third Circuit focusing on the breadth of the injunction and efficacy of the remedies that were issued along with Judge Politan’s ruling. Judge Politan enjoined Marshak and his company from marketing The Drifters anywhere – not On Broadway, not Up On the Roof, and not Under the Boardwalk – and ordered a full accounting of profits.
Treadwell, thinking that these actions were not Some Kind of Wonderful, thus brought a motion for contempt, arguing that the Politan injunction applied to Marshak’s associates as well as to Marshak. After a lengthy hearing, the District Court found that Marshak and his associates were in contempt of the Politan injunction, but limited Treadwell’s remedies to an award of attorneys’ fees. Both sides then appealed: Marshak and his associates appealed the merits of the decision, while Treadwell challenged the paucity of the remedies.
Reviewing the record in its entirety, the Third Circuit found ample support for the District Court’s contempt findings against the Marshaks and Singer Management for the violation of the lower court’s injunctions and solidifying the ownership of The Drifter’s mark with the Treadwells.
The Trademark Company
The dispute in this case centers on the trademark rights to The Drifters , a popular singing group from the 1950s and 1960s.1 The Drifters first appeared in 1953 and came under the management of George Treadwell the following year. George Treadwell hired and paid the individual performers as employees, replacing them frequently. For nearly two decades, The Drifters as an entity persisted, though the membership of the group was constantly in flux. George Treadwell passed away in 1959, and his wife, Faye Treadwell, took over management of the group.
By 1970, The Drifters had largely ceased to perform in the United States, although their songs were still played on the radio. Marshak, an editor for a rock magazine, saw this as an opportunity. Working with CBS Radio, which had shifted to an “oldies” format, Marshak reunited some of the former members o f the group – those who had been replaced over the years by the Treadwells – for a series of reunion concerts. Capitalizing on the success of these concerts, Marshak signed the former members to exclusive management contracts and began marketing them as “The Drifters.”
Over the next three decades, Marshak continued marketing The Drifters in the United States. His efforts at promotion were occasionally interrupted by trademark infringement litigation – Faye Treadwell sued Marshak, and Marshak in turn sued other Drifters promoters – but these lawsuits were often inconclusive.
The case recently came before the Third Circuit focusing on the breadth of the injunction and efficacy of the remedies that were issued along with Judge Politan’s ruling. Judge Politan enjoined Marshak and his company from marketing The Drifters anywhere – not On Broadway, not Up On the Roof, and not Under the Boardwalk – and ordered a full accounting of profits.
Treadwell, thinking that these actions were not Some Kind of Wonderful, thus brought a motion for contempt, arguing that the Politan injunction applied to Marshak’s associates as well as to Marshak. After a lengthy hearing, the District Court found that Marshak and his associates were in contempt of the Politan injunction, but limited Treadwell’s remedies to an award of attorneys’ fees. Both sides then appealed: Marshak and his associates appealed the merits of the decision, while Treadwell challenged the paucity of the remedies.
Reviewing the record in its entirety, the Third Circuit found ample support for the District Court’s contempt findings against the Marshaks and Singer Management for the violation of the lower court’s injunctions and solidifying the ownership of The Drifter’s mark with the Treadwells.
The Trademark Company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
