
• Owners of Who Dat?, Inc. sue the NFL and the New Orleans Saints for trademark infringement, seeking to protect the mark that "has become one of the most recognizable in all of America and quickly became well-known around the world." Who Dat?, Inc. v. NFL Properties
• Army bomb disposal expert sues the makers of "The Hurt Locker" for plagiarizing his life story. The film is "nothing more than the exploitation of a real life honorable, courageous, and long serving member of our country’s armed forces, by greedy multi-billion dollar 'entertainment' corporations." Sarver v. The Hurt Locker
• Former patient sues the Cincinnati hospital where he was sexually assaulted by a transgender nurse. The nurse's "employment while masquerading as a member of the female gender in a hospital environment involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others." Evans v. University of Cincinnati
• Federal judge enjoins the City of Phoenix from enforcing a noise ordinance against "sound generated in the course of religious expression," finding the right of churches to ring bells outweighs "the City's interest in preserving the peace and tranquility of its neighborhoods." St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish v. City of Phoenix
• 5th Circuit says a Texas city's junked vehicle ordinance applies to a cactus planter made out of wrecked Oldsmobile 88. "Irrespective of the intentions of its creators ... the car-planter is a utilitarian device, an advertisement, and ultimately a 'junked vehicle.'" Kleinman v. City of San Marcos
• Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols notifies a federal judge that he has gone on hunger strike, saying he is "prepared to die if necessary because he is done allowing his body to be defiled by [ ] refined and dead foods." Nichols v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
• Texas judge finds the makers of a film about Rin Tin Tin did not infringe on the trademarks of a breeder of German Shepherds. "Defendants['] title 'Finding Rin Tin Tin: The Adventure Continues" is a fair use of the term 'Rin Tin Tin.'" Rin Tin Tin, Inc. v. First Look Studios
• Illinois appeals court says the contact sports exception to negligence liability does not apply to the case of an athletic trainer who was struck in the eye by a hockey puck while refilling water bottles. Michael Weisberg "suffered injuries as a result of alleged conduct that was not inherent to the sport of hockey." Weisberg v. Chicago Steel

|
|
Cover Version Does Not Violate Publicity Rights |
|
Finding no right of publicity in the sound of a voice, a Michigan judge has ruled that '80s rockers The Romantics cannot sue the publisher of the “Guitar Hero” video games for misappropriation of their “distinctive sound.”
“[W]hile Michigan law protects against the unauthorized use of a plaintiff's name or likeness, it does not recognize an analogous claim based on the sound of a voice, let alone the allegedly distinctive sound of a combination of voices,” U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds said in granting summary judgment to Activision Publishing.
A cover version of The Romantics' hit “What I Like About You” is included on "Guitar Hero Encore, Rocks the 80s.” Activision had acquired a “synchronization” license to use the song, but the band claimed the cover was such a slavish imitation of the original that it amounted to an infringement of their publicity rights.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld publicity rights claims involving the “distinctive” voices of singers Bette Midler and Tom Waits. “The use and commercial exploitation of a song that imitates a singer's distinctive sound constitutes a violation of the singer's right of publicity,” The Romantics argued in a court brief.
But Edmunds said the band had “failed to establish that their 'sound' is distinctive,” noting that “not all Plaintiffs performed on the original master recording of the Song, and the lead featured singer on the original master recording of the Song is not a Plaintiff in this case.”
Activision licenses the rights to songs for “Guitar Hero” and then has WaveGroup Sound, a collective of musicians, record cover versions of them. Edmunds also dismissed The Romantics' Lanham Act claim that consumers would mistake the cover of “What I Like About You” for the original.
“Plaintiffs filed this suit over nine months ago, yet they have not provided the Court with a single affidavit from a confused consumer,” she said in an Aug. 19 opinion.
Ultimately, the case was little more than a clumsy attempt to circumvent the Copyright Act, which, as Edmunds observed, “expressly disallows any recourse for a sound-alike recording of a song.”
A copyright infringement claim would fail, the judge said, because “Defendants' synch license gives them the right to make their own recording of the Song to integrate into the Game without violating Plaintiffs' right of publicity.”
|
Other Romantics v. Activision Court Documents
|
|
|
-
Perfume Allergy Case Settles for $100,000
A Detroit city planner with an allergy to perfume is savoring the sweet smell of legal success after the city agreed to pay her $100,000 and be more sensitive to the chemically sensitive.
Read more...
-
Teen's Suit Puts Mug-Shot Publisher Against the Wall
A new publication in Lincoln, Neb., milks mug shots for humor. But a teenager whose arrest photo appeared in Cuffed doesn't see the funny side of it and has sued the publisher for misappropriating his image.
Read more...
-
BA Settles 'Reckless' Baggage Handling Suit
Limiting its liability to a group of only 13 airline passengers, British Airways (NYSE: BAY) has settled a first-of-its kind lawsuit that accused the airline of being “inexcusably reckless” in its handling of passengers' baggage.
Read more...
-
Judge Says "Gay" Still Defamatory in Texas
What one court has called “a veritable sea change in social attitudes about homosexuality” has evidently not reached Texas where a judge ruled that an airport security guard can sue a radio show host for calling him “gay” on the air.
Read more...
-
Mom Says Hospital Gave Her Wrong Baby to Nurse
Because of a hospital's error, Jennifer Spiegel became an involuntary wet nurse to another woman's newborn son. Now she is suing the hospital for its malpractice in providing her with the wrong baby to breastfeed.
Read more...
-
Case Over MySpace Page Chills Student Speech
Several recent court rulings have been protective of off-campus student speech -– with the exception of a very shaky decision that a dissenting judge said “vests school officials with dangerously overbroad censorship discretion.”
Read more...
-
Motorist Who Flipped off Cop Gets $50K From City
The citation of a motorist for displaying his middle finger to a police officer -– what a judge described as a “somewhat innocuous” gesture -- turned out to be quite expensive for the City of Pittsburgh as it agreed to pay $50,000 to the bird-flipper.
Read more...
|
Spears v. Allergan, Inc. Court: Orange County (Calif.) Superior Subject: Botox death Verdict: Defense
Patterson v. Hudson Area Schools Court: USDC, E. Mich. Subject: Student harassment
more
|
|
McClain v. Pfizer, Inc. Date: 3/2/10 Court: USDC, Conn. Hearing: Jury trial in case over unsafe lab conditions.
Sherman v. McDonald's Corp. Date: 3/23/10 Court: Washington County (Ark.) Circuit Hearing: Jury trial in case over nude photos.
more
|
|
|