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
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.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?