Law of Hollywood Land

Entertainment Legal Bouts and Justice

Football Star Vince Young in Trademark Dispute Over His Own Name

vince-young-lawsuit

Vince Young, who plays football for the Tennessee Titans, is currently in a copyright dispute over his nickname In-Vince-Able / Invinceable and his initials VY.  Turns out, a day after winning the 2006 Rose Bowl, both were trademarked by three astute entrepreneurs – one of which is former Astros baseball player Enos Cabell – and Young wants them back.

Young has filed the lawsuit primarily to get back the two trademarked terms, since Young can not currently use the terms with potential promotional deals including one with Reebok.

The defendants have yet to make any official statement on the lawsuit.

Advertisements

December 17, 2008 Posted by | Copyright, Copyright Infringement, Lawsuit, Sports Athlete | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hulk Hogan Sells Trademark Names To Avoid Paying Linda in Divorce

hulk-hogan-wife-divorce

This is the claim that Linda Hogan is making with her lawyers.  She says that Hogan is selling off his trademark and brand name rights – including Hollywood Hulk, Hulkster and Hulkamania – to avoid paying assets to her in the divorce. The trademarks were sold to Hogans best friend Eric Bischoff for a fraction of what they are worth.

November 14, 2008 Posted by | Celebrity, Celebrity Wannabe, Divorce | , , , , | 2 Comments

What is Behind Fox’s Attack on Warner Bros Over WATCHMEN?

As you have heard, some legal battles have been raised due to the highly expected film adaptation of comic books, WATCHMEN.

So what really happens?

Well, basically, a judge has granted 20th Century Fox permission to take Warner Bros. to court for not obtaining permission to make WATCHMEN in the first place. Fox has appeared to have the copyright protection to make a film of WATCHMEN for the past 22 years, without luck, in reality, to make it themselves. Warner seems to think that everything is on the up and up, so the battle goes to trial.

Properties that are derived from studies, but in the end was not done are generally collected by other studies. But the original studio still hangs on in case the film has becomes a giant property. In this case, Fox tried to make WATCHMEN before, and now WB is doing it and receiving much attention in the process, so pissed Fox is and does not want to become a joke.

Apparently, Fox does have reasonable ground for their lawsuit for the issues of “turnaround” and “changed elements”, and has already been explained in an article in the New York Times this week.

On its face, turnaround is a contractual mechanism that allows a studio to release its interest in a dormant film project, while recovering costs, plus interest, from any rival that eventually adopts the project. But turnaround is a stacked deck.

The turnaround clauses in a typical contract are also insurance for studio executives who do not want to be humiliated by a competitor who makes a hit out of their castoffs.

That trick turns on a term of art: “changed elements.” A producer of a movie acquired in turnaround who comes up with a new director, or star, or story line, or even a reduction in budget, must give the original studio another shot at making the movie because of changed elements, even if a new backer has entered the picture.

Thus, “Michael Clayton” was put in turnaround by Castle Rock Entertainment (which, like Warner, belongs to Time Warner). When George Clooney became attached to star in it, however, Castle Rock stood on its right to be involved as a producer of what turned out to be an Oscar-nominated film.

But what this all comes down to is money. Fox may appear to want to stop WATCHMEN in its tracks, but the real purpose is for them to get a piece of what will bound to be some massive monetary intake.

WATCHMEN storms theaters March 6, 2009.

August 27, 2008 Posted by | Copyright, Copyright Infringement, Lawsuit | , , , , , , | 1 Comment