Georgia Fed. Ct. Dismisses Suit Over <i>Honey</i> Films

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, dismissed a lawsuit brought by hip-hop dancer Ereina “Honey Rockwell” Valencia over Universal's Honey and Honey 2 movies, released respectively in 2003 and 2011. Valencia v. Universal City Studios LLC, 1:14-CV-00528.

Like the plaintiff, the films' “Honey Daniels” is a Bronx native with Hispanic family roots who teaches dance classes in the Bronx. Valencia sued in 2014. In Georgia, claims alleging violation of right-of-publicity, and intrusion on a plaintiff's seclusion and solitude, have two-year statutes of limitations. (The court said it assumed for purposes of its ruling that Valencia was a Georgia or New York resident.)

In Valencia's case, District Judge Richard W. Story found these claims to be time-barred. The district judge wrote he wasn't convinced by Valencia's “discovery rule” argument that “that she could not have brought suit earlier due to her unfamiliarity with the film industry. ' Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants acted fraudulently, merely that she was unable to ascertain their identities without the advice of counsel.” (Marc Platt Productions is a co-defendant with Universal.)

Judge Story went on to dismiss Valencia's federal Lanham Act and Georgia trademark claims, which have four-year statutes of limitations in Georgia, by noting that he “assumes without deciding that Plaintiff has a cognizable claim to trademark rights in the mark 'Honey Rockwell.' However, rights in the composite name 'Honey Rockwell' do not confer rights in the single name 'Honey.'” The district judge added that Valencia “has not alleged that she sold goods and services under the single name 'Honey.' Because she has not used the mark 'HONEY,' Plaintiff cannot have achieved secondary meaning in that mark.”

As for Valencia's claim under Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. '10-1-372, Judge Story decided that, “even undertaking the analysis using the trade name Honey, the Court concludes that the Honey films are protected by the First Amendment. The title Honey is artistically relevant to the protagonist Honey Daniels's first name. Similarly, Honey 2 is relevant in that the protagonist of that film drew inspiration from Honey Daniels. The facts alleged in [Valencia's] Amended Complaint, construed in Plaintiff's favor, are not sufficient to allow the Court to conclude that the title could explicitly mislead as to the source of the work.”

Stan Soocher'is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Financeand a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He is the 2014 recipient of the State Bar of Texas Entertainment & Sports Law Section's 'Texas Star Award.' Stan can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, dismissed a lawsuit brought by hip-hop dancer Ereina “Honey Rockwell” Valencia over Universal's Honey and Honey 2 movies, released respectively in 2003 and 2011. Valencia v. Universal City Studios LLC, 1:14-CV-00528.

Like the plaintiff, the films' “Honey Daniels” is a Bronx native with Hispanic family roots who teaches dance classes in the Bronx. Valencia sued in 2014. In Georgia, claims alleging violation of right-of-publicity, and intrusion on a plaintiff's seclusion and solitude, have two-year statutes of limitations. (The court said it assumed for purposes of its ruling that Valencia was a Georgia or New York resident.)

In Valencia's case, District Judge Richard W. Story found these claims to be time-barred. The district judge wrote he wasn't convinced by Valencia's “discovery rule” argument that “that she could not have brought suit earlier due to her unfamiliarity with the film industry. ' Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants acted fraudulently, merely that she was unable to ascertain their identities without the advice of counsel.” (Marc Platt Productions is a co-defendant with Universal.)

Judge Story went on to dismiss Valencia's federal Lanham Act and Georgia trademark claims, which have four-year statutes of limitations in Georgia, by noting that he “assumes without deciding that Plaintiff has a cognizable claim to trademark rights in the mark 'Honey Rockwell.' However, rights in the composite name 'Honey Rockwell' do not confer rights in the single name 'Honey.'” The district judge added that Valencia “has not alleged that she sold goods and services under the single name 'Honey.' Because she has not used the mark 'HONEY,' Plaintiff cannot have achieved secondary meaning in that mark.”

As for Valencia's claim under Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. '10-1-372, Judge Story decided that, “even undertaking the analysis using the trade name Honey, the Court concludes that the Honey films are protected by the First Amendment. The title Honey is artistically relevant to the protagonist Honey Daniels's first name. Similarly, Honey 2 is relevant in that the protagonist of that film drew inspiration from Honey Daniels. The facts alleged in [Valencia's] Amended Complaint, construed in Plaintiff's favor, are not sufficient to allow the Court to conclude that the title could explicitly mislead as to the source of the work.”

Stan Soocher'is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Financeand a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He is the 2014 recipient of the State Bar of Texas Entertainment & Sports Law Section's 'Texas Star Award.' Stan can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.