Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

DeLorean Estate's Lawsuit over 'Back To the Future' Royalties

By Charles Toutant
June 01, 2018

Two camps are battling in New Jersey federal court over royalties paid by Universal Pictures for use of the car that became a time machine in the Back to the Future movie trilogy. Sally DeLorean, the widow of auto executive John DeLorean, claims in a lawsuit filed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that DeLorean Motor Co. of Humble, TX, misrepresented itself to Universal as owner of the DeLorean name. The complaint alleges that DeLorean Motor, which has said it wants to make new replica versions of the car, collected a “substantial payment” of royalties from Universal that the plaintiff said properly belong to the late automaker's estate. DeLorean v. DeLorean Motor Co., 2:2018cv08212.

The estate of John DeLorean, who died in 2005, litigated once before with the Texas-based DeLorean company in New Jersey federal court, reaching a settlement in 2015. Under the settlement, the estate agreed not to oppose limited use of the DeLorean name and logos by DeLorean Motor. But that company subsequently used the settlement to convince Universal to hand over a “six-figure” payment of royalties related to the car's movie appearances, said R. Scott Thompson of Lowenstein Sandler in Roseland, NJ, who represents the DeLorean estate and Sally DeLorean.

The estate seeks a declaration that it did not transfer its rights to movie royalties to the Texas company when the two parties settled the prior suit. The estate also seeks an accounting of all sums paid by Universal to DeLorean and an order directing that those funds be paid to the estate.

Under the accord between DeLorean Motor and the DeLorean family, the Texas company agreed to pay an unspecified sum to the estate, according to court documents. The estate said in the settlement that it would release the defendants from “any and all claims and causes of action” that were sought or could have been sought in the litigation. Also under the settlement, the estate agreed not to challenge the use by DeLorean Texas of the name “DeLorean Motor Company” or “DMC.”

DeLorean Texas' attorney in the prior case, William Mead Jr. of Litchfield Cavo in Cherry Hill, NJ, said he was not familiar with the latest suit and had not been retained to handle it. The company did not respond to a phone call or an email about the case.

The DeLorean DMC-12, with its gull-wing doors and brushed stainless steel body panels, was produced from 1981 to 1983 in a factory in Northern Ireland. Only about 9,000 were made. But it earned a place in pop culture in 1985 when Marty McFly, played by Michael J. Fox, traveled through time in a DeLorean radically modified by Doc Brown, played by Christopher Lloyd, in Back to the Future.

The DeLorean is at the center of the plotlines in the three Back to the Future films: Fox's character uses the car to journey to the past and future, including one trip where he encounters his own parents as teenagers.

John DeLorean signed a contract with Universal in 1989, providing royalty payments for use of the vehicle in Back to the Future. That contract gave DeLorean a 5% cut of Universal's net receipts for merchandising deals in which the car is a “key component.” Universal made some payments under the agreement but stopped at a point in time that is unknown by the estate, according to the new lawsuit. The estate could not enforce John DeLorean's rights at the time of his death because it did not have a copy of the agreement, the complaint claims.

Attorney Thompson said the estate approached Universal in February 2018 about royalty payments pursuant to the 1989 contract, only to learn that the Texas DeLorean company had sought to collect the royalties a few months before. Thompson said he didn't know how much DeLorean Texas collected in royalties, but he believed it was a six-figure sum.

Thompson said DeLorean Texas started out as a club for DeLorean owners. It sells used DeLoreans and DeLorean parts, and has proposed production of new, replica versions of the car, although that venture has yet to get off the ground, according to the Texas company's website.

Although the estate holds the commercial rights to the DeLorean name, it has not made much use of it over the years, while DeLorean Texas has been using the name for commercial purposes, which gives it certain rights, said Thompson.

More than 30 years after the movie's release, the Back to the Future name and the DeLorean time machine are still being licensed by companies such as Lego and Nike, Thompson added. He said Sally DeLorean feels DeLorean Texas has wrongly represented itself as the rightful owners of the company's intellectual property, and she wants to set the record straight, said Thompson.

“Any time they surface and overstep what we believe are their actual rights, she becomes concerned,” Thompson noted.

*****

Charles Toutant writes for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM affiliate publication of Entertainment Law & Finance. He can be reached at [email protected].

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
COVID-19 and Lease Negotiations: Early Termination Provisions Image

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.

How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using? Image

What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.

Generative AI and the 2024 Elections: Risks, Realities, and Lessons for Businesses Image

GenAI's ability to produce highly sophisticated and convincing content at a fraction of the previous cost has raised fears that it could amplify misinformation. The dissemination of fake audio, images and text could reshape how voters perceive candidates and parties. Businesses, too, face challenges in managing their reputations and navigating this new terrain of manipulated content.

Authentic Communications Today Increase Success for Value-Driven Clients Image

As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.

Pleading Importation: ITC Decisions Highlight Need for Adequate Evidentiary Support Image

The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.