Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a defendant's motion to transfer to New York federal court a suit over the alleged unauthorized use of the names and likenesses of legendary baseball players, including Lou Gehrig, Thurman Munson and Jackie Robinson. CMG Worldwide Inc. v. The Upper Deck Co. Inc., 1:08-cv-761-RLY-JMS.
In 2007, CMG, an Indiana-based celebrity licensing agency, and Upper Deck, with offices in California and New Jersey, entered into short-term, non-exclusive agreements for trading card goods. The agreements included an Indiana forum selection clause. In 2008, CMG entered into an exclusive agreement for the rights to the same baseball players with the New York-based Topps Co. CMG and Topps then sued in Indiana federal court, alleging that Upper Deck had released trading card products after its agreements with CMG expired.
In granting Upper Deck's motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York, the Indiana district court noted: “Both Upper Deck and Topps have offices either in or near the Southern District of New York. Although CMG does not have an office in New York, CMG engages in business throughout the world.”
The court continued: “Although CMG makes reference to the expired Permission Agreements [with the Indiana forum selection clause], CMG does not explain in the Amended Complaint nor in its filings how the expired Permission Agreements play a role in this case.
“Indiana has little or no connection with the controversy at issue. CMG, the only party connection to Indiana, is merely acting as an agent for the estates of these players, so its location is not material. In addition, no Indiana property rights are implicated by this case as Topps has not established that any of the Legends were domiciled in Indiana at the time of each of their respective deaths. New York, on the other hand, was the domicile of two of the players in question (Lou Gehrig and Christy Mathewson) at the time of their deaths, so New York law applies to any publicity rights that CMG allegedly holds and allegedly transferred to Topps with respect to these former players.”
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a defendant's motion to transfer to
In 2007, CMG, an Indiana-based celebrity licensing agency, and Upper Deck, with offices in California and New Jersey, entered into short-term, non-exclusive agreements for trading card goods. The agreements included an Indiana forum selection clause. In 2008, CMG entered into an exclusive agreement for the rights to the same baseball players with the New York-based Topps Co. CMG and Topps then sued in Indiana federal court, alleging that Upper Deck had released trading card products after its agreements with CMG expired.
In granting Upper Deck's motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of
The court continued: “Although CMG makes reference to the expired Permission Agreements [with the Indiana forum selection clause], CMG does not explain in the Amended Complaint nor in its filings how the expired Permission Agreements play a role in this case.
“Indiana has little or no connection with the controversy at issue. CMG, the only party connection to Indiana, is merely acting as an agent for the estates of these players, so its location is not material. In addition, no Indiana property rights are implicated by this case as Topps has not established that any of the Legends were domiciled in Indiana at the time of each of their respective deaths.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.