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
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?