Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
June 30, 2011

Members in Expos' When Music Act
Gained Success Own Common Law Rights to Name

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that the members in Expos' when the music act released its first successful album in 1986 were the common law owners of the rights to the “Expos'” name. Crystal Entertainment and Filmworks Inc. v. Jurado, 10-11837. Expos' was started by Pandera Productions in 1984 with three members who by 1986 were replaced with Ann Curless, Gioia Bruno and Jeanette Jurado. The latter three were featured on the debut Expos' album, which sold three million copies. Plaintiff Crystal Entertainment is Pandera's claimed successor in interest to the purported rights in the Expos' name. The district and appeals courts did find that Curless, Bruno and Garcia breached a 2006 agreement to pay Crystal Entertainment 10% of the gross income from Expos' concerts and merchandise. But on the trademark issue, the appeals court concluded, as did the trial court, that “Jurado, Curless, and Bruno controlled the qualities and characteristics that the public associates with the Expos' mark.”


Right of Publicity and Trademark Rulings on
“Dillinger Tommy Guns” in Videogames

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Southern District of Indiana decided that the descendibility provision of the state's right of publicity statute, Ind. Code '32-36-1-8(a), doesn't apply to individuals who died before the law was enacted in 1994. Dillinger LLC v. Electronic Arts (EA) Inc., 1:09-cv-01236. As part of a pair of rulings involving reference to “Dillinger Tommy Gun” in Electronics Arts videogames based on the popular Godfather movies, District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson emphasized: “Providing causes of action for the heirs of the millions of people who died between 1894 and 1994 ' i.e., during the 100 year post-death period of protection [in this case, for late 1930s gangster John Dillinger] ' would greatly expand the potential liabilities that the statute creates.” The retroactivity ruling is significant because Indiana's right of publicity statute applies to “an act or event that occurs within Indiana, regardless of a personality's domicile, residence or citizenship.” In her second ruling, District Judge Magnus-Stinson found EA's inclusion of the “Dillinger Tommy Gun” and “Modern Dillinger” Tommy Gun in the videogames were protected First Amendment uses that didn't violate “Dillinger” trademark rights. Judge Magnus-Stinson noted that “any connection [with the videogames] whatsoever is enough for the Court to determine that the mark's use meets 'the appropriately low threshold of minimal artistic relevance.'” The Godfather videogames don't include Dillinger himself, but district judge observed: “The gentleman-bandit, commonly known for his public persona as a 'flashy gangster who dressed well, womanized, drove around in fast cars, and sprayed Tommy Guns,' has above-zero relevance to a game whose premise enables players to act like members of the mafia and spray Tommy Guns.”

Members in Expos' When Music Act
Gained Success Own Common Law Rights to Name

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that the members in Expos' when the music act released its first successful album in 1986 were the common law owners of the rights to the “Expos'” name. Crystal Entertainment and Filmworks Inc. v. Jurado, 10-11837. Expos' was started by Pandera Productions in 1984 with three members who by 1986 were replaced with Ann Curless, Gioia Bruno and Jeanette Jurado. The latter three were featured on the debut Expos' album, which sold three million copies. Plaintiff Crystal Entertainment is Pandera's claimed successor in interest to the purported rights in the Expos' name. The district and appeals courts did find that Curless, Bruno and Garcia breached a 2006 agreement to pay Crystal Entertainment 10% of the gross income from Expos' concerts and merchandise. But on the trademark issue, the appeals court concluded, as did the trial court, that “Jurado, Curless, and Bruno controlled the qualities and characteristics that the public associates with the Expos' mark.”


Right of Publicity and Trademark Rulings on
“Dillinger Tommy Guns” in Videogames

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Southern District of Indiana decided that the descendibility provision of the state's right of publicity statute, Ind. Code '32-36-1-8(a), doesn't apply to individuals who died before the law was enacted in 1994. Dillinger LLC v. Electronic Arts (EA) Inc., 1:09-cv-01236. As part of a pair of rulings involving reference to “Dillinger Tommy Gun” in Electronics Arts videogames based on the popular Godfather movies, District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson emphasized: “Providing causes of action for the heirs of the millions of people who died between 1894 and 1994 ' i.e., during the 100 year post-death period of protection [in this case, for late 1930s gangster John Dillinger] ' would greatly expand the potential liabilities that the statute creates.” The retroactivity ruling is significant because Indiana's right of publicity statute applies to “an act or event that occurs within Indiana, regardless of a personality's domicile, residence or citizenship.” In her second ruling, District Judge Magnus-Stinson found EA's inclusion of the “Dillinger Tommy Gun” and “Modern Dillinger” Tommy Gun in the videogames were protected First Amendment uses that didn't violate “Dillinger” trademark rights. Judge Magnus-Stinson noted that “any connection [with the videogames] whatsoever is enough for the Court to determine that the mark's use meets 'the appropriately low threshold of minimal artistic relevance.'” The Godfather videogames don't include Dillinger himself, but district judge observed: “The gentleman-bandit, commonly known for his public persona as a 'flashy gangster who dressed well, womanized, drove around in fast cars, and sprayed Tommy Guns,' has above-zero relevance to a game whose premise enables players to act like members of the mafia and spray Tommy Guns.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?