Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Inside the Taco Bell Case
Competition in all aspects of the entertainment world – from television to movies, to the record industry, to the Internet, to the video game industry – has grown quite fierce over the past decade. The stakes are higher than ever. So is the demand for successful, breakthrough ideas. Consequently, cases alleging the theft of creative ideas are becoming more and more common. A recent case in which this writer served as plaintiffs' co-counsel demonstrates how substantial damages can be in lawsuits over ideas.
In June, after a three-week trial, a federal jury in Grand Rapids, MI, awarded plaintiffs Joseph Shields, Thomas Rinks and their company, Wrench LLC, $30.1 million against Taco Bell for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 1:98 CV 45. (Taco Bell is expected to appeal the case.) The plaintiffs claimed that Taco Bell used their ideas for a live-action Chihuahua with a feisty attitude and an obsession with Taco Bell food in a TV advertising campaign for 2.5 years without payment.
The plaintiffs came up with the idea for a character called Psycho Chihuahua in 1995. They licensed the character for such merchandise as t-shirts, posters and school supplies. In June 1996, Ed Alfaro, who was in charge of Taco Bell's licensing program, saw Psycho Chihuahua at the Licensing Expo in New York City.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.