Box-o-mania &
Maxim Tselevich
v.
Marvel Entertainment
LLC; Marvel Characters Corp.; Marvel International Character Holdings LLC;
Marvel Characters B. V. Inc
Overview:
In 2009, California based toy store, Box-O-Mania, and it’s
owner, Maxim Tselevich, created a playhouse and approached Marvel about a
licensing deal to use their characters to brand the product. Later, in 2010,
Marvel and Box-O-Mania set forth a deal to create a product name Iron Man’s
Lair, a playhouse that would feature the character Tony Stark and be released
later that year coinciding with the Iron Man 2 movie’s release on DVD. Marvel
later then did not want to give the intellectual property needed for the
product and Box-O-Mania found out a few months down the road that Marvel didn’t
have the rights to the IP they agreed to give in the first place causing the
toy company to lose $33,000 already spent on the product.
Opinion:
This lawsuit was filed on May 3, 2012 and I think that was a
smart move on Tselevich’s part. It was filed the day before the release of the
highly anticipated Avengers movie, which is of course a Marvel Entertainment
film. After breaking numerous records in theaters, I’m sure this case will get
more press than it would’ve if filed back when they first realized the amount
of damages caused by Marvel. Marvel being the corporation and superhero empire
it is, and not to mention being owned by Disney, I think it was a rookie
mistake to make an offer they couldn’t uphold and I believe Box-O-Mania should
receive all the damages they lost back in full along with further compensation
for any other expenses.
How could I use this
case towards my future endeavors for my business?
Do my homework on the people I’m going to make an agreement
with before the fact, no matter how well known of a company it may be, to avoid
anything coming up later. As well as sue at a convenient time at the benefit of
my business.
George Litto
v.
Columbia Broadcasting
System
Overview:
George Litto, talent agent of the creator of the original
Hawaii Five-O series from 1968-1980 filed a lawsuit looking to receive profits
from the new CBS remake and $10 million in punitive damages. When the creator
pasted away in 1974, Litto negotiated an amendment to the contract on behalf of
widow Rose Freeman and was set to get a 10% commission. CBS later fought over
the rights it and it landed in federal court in 1997. CBS claimed the creator’s
heirs to the separation of rights and control of reserved rights. CBS went into
discussions with the trusts’ representatives for a series reboot but not Litto.
They made an agreement and that allowed for the new series currently on CBS. Rose
Freedman pasted away in March, giving Litto sole management control over the
company set up to receive revenue and is now why Litto wants punitive demands
as well as a transfer of all fess, commissions, profits and other revenue form
the new series.
Opinion:
I believe Litto
should have been a part of the discussions for the reboot of the series since
his agency also negotiated for Leonard Freeman, the creator, up until he pasted
away. With Hawaii Five-O being a top rated show, Litto also believed if the
1974 deal hadn’t been amended it could have gotten the company he and Rose set
up, so I don’t think his amount for punitive damages it too much. The original
show was very successful and so is the remake thus far so Rose should have
included Litto in her negotiations because she may under bargained with CBS.
How could I use this
case towards my future endeavors for my business?
I will be sure to
extensively write out how anything my business or I create will be willed and
what I would wish to happen with it upon my death.
Renaissance Pictures
v.
Award Pictures
Overview:
Last year, in 2011, Sam Raimi announced he would be making a
fourth installment of the Evil Dead franchise and went to the U.S. trademark
office to register the mark but Award Pictures came forward and claimed Raimi
had abandoned the franchise previously and that they were working on a sequel.
Award pictures used a statement by Raimi in the 2000 book, Evil Dead Companion, stating he would never make a sequel.
Furthermore they identified over 20 movies that used Evil dead in it’s name and
stated Renaissance exhibited “uncontrolled, unregulated and undefended use of
Evil Dead.” Renaissance’s argument is that they have used their mark in
licensing merchandise for the franchise. Also, that character names would
infringe on Renaissance’s copyright of Evil Dead so they are requesting an
injunction on further infringement and further monetary damage.
Opinion:
Award Pictures did put up a good defense I must say with the
public declaration that Raimi abandoned the franchise along with the other
claims they made but Sam Raimi should come out of this on top. Whether they
abandoned it or not Award Pictures should have contacted them upon the
inception of their idea to make a sequal.
How could I use this
case towards my future endeavors for my business?
I’d watch what I say about
the project I produce and what I plan to do with them in the future. In other
words, never say never about future productions.
References
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
No comments:
Post a Comment