Bruce Lee Sues Ecko and Leo Valenia’s A.V.E.L.A. Over Clothing Using Lee’s Image

One of the things I like about trademark infringement complaints is the background story you get about famous individuals (albeit stated in lawyer legalese, which fortunately I can understand) – in this case, Bruce Lee.

On April 1, 2009, Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC (“BLE”) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Marc Ecko Enterprises, A.V.E.L.A., Inc. and Leo Valencia in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. See Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC v. Marc Ecko Enterprises et al., Case No. 09-CV-00398 (S.D. Ind. April 1, 2009). A copy of the complaint can be downloaded here.

The complaint provides a nice history of the life of Bruce Lee –his childhood acting, his young days with martial arts and cha cha dancing, his acting career as “Kato” (on the TV show The Green Hornet), his mastery of martial arts that he would later develop into JEET KOON DO, and his famous martial arts films up through his final film, Enter the Dragon.

Bruce Lee’s family established the company Concord Moon LP to hold the exclusive rights to all commercial merchandising and related rights relating to the use of Lee’s name, his image likeness, persona, signature, mannerisms, distinctive appearance, sayings, voice, and photographs. Concord Moon also held the rights to three particular federal trademark registrations – for the mark BRUCE LEE (for clothing), the mark JEET KUNE DO® (for magazines), and the below logo (described as the “Core Logo” -- a logo that Lee developed sometime in 1964 to associate with Lee and his martial arts principles of “Using No Way as Way, Having No Limitation as Limitation”) registered in three different classes (martial arts instruction, jewelry and lapel pins, and achievement certificates and non-fiction martial arts books) and pending in another (clothing). A slightly different variation of the logo has also been registered.

On April 1, 2008, BLE was organized by Lee’s family to be the successor-in-interest to Concord Moon’s intellectual property rights.

Marc Ecko Enterprises (Ecko) is the “global fashion and lifestyle company” behind such clothing brands as *ecko unltd, Avirex, and Zoo York.

Apparently, BLE contacted Ecko regarding a t-shirt with a Marc Ecko label on it that had Lee’s image on it. Ecko wrote back to BLE stating that it had obtained a license to the use Lee’s image from A.V.E.L.A., Inc. (the Art and Vintage Entertainment Licensing Agency) (“AVELA”), which is owned by Valencia. Subsequently, BLE sent a cease and desist letter to AVELA and Valencia regarding their sale of t-shirts online and in Target Stores having Bruce Lee’s image thereon; however, neither AVELA or Valencia apparently replied.

BLE’s causes of action are for violation of Lee’s right of publicity under Indiana law (I.C. §32-36-1 et seq.), California law (Cal.Civ.Code §3344), and under common law; registered trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); common law unfair competition; unjust enrichment; conversion under Indiana law (I.C. §35-43-4-3); deception under Indiana law (I.C. §35-43-5-3), and a claim for relief under Indiana Crime Victims' Act (Ind. Code §34-24-3-1) for BLE’s losses as the result of the Defendants’ conversion and deception.

Nostalgia Moment – one of my favorite computer games in my youth was Datasoft’s Bruce Lee (pictured below).

Old Fogey Moment – they just don't make games like they used to.

Taco Bell's Answer to 50 Cent's Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

Yo Yo Yo No Quiero Taco Bell !

The trademark infringement story du jour on Thursday was the Answer filed by Taco Bell in the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Curtis James Jackson, III (better known as the rapper 50 Cent) on July 23, 2008. See Jackson v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 08-cv-06545 (S.D.N.Y.). A copy of the answer filed in September is available here (courtesy of TMZ.com which ran a story on the filing yesterday). News articles on the originally filed lawsuit can be found here and here.

50 Cent filed the lawsuit after Taco Bell sometime in July sent an open “letter” to 50 Cent, signed by Taco Bell President Greg Creed, which offered to make a $10,000 donation to 50 Cent’s charity of choice if he agreed to change his name from 50 Cent to 79, 89, or 99 Cent and stop by any Taco Bell restaurant of his choosing and rap his order at the drive-thru using the new name. See news reports here and here.

The letter, which was part of Taco Bells’ “Why Pay More” value menu campaign advertising the company's 79, 89, and 99 cent food items, read “We know that you adopted the name 50 Cent years ago as a metaphor for change. We at Taco Bell are also huge advocates for change... We encourage you to 'Think Outside the Bun' and hope you accept our offer.” Taco Bell also agreed to feed for free all of the guests at the Taco Bell location where 50 Cent decided to place his order.

50 Cent felt that the letter used, without his authorization, his name, persona and trademark (the the registered mark 50 CENT) for commercial purposes and led consumers to mistakenly believe that he was endorsing Taco Bell. 50 Cent also felt that the campaign had made his fans think that he had “sold out” by endorsing Taco Bell, thus harming his rap image.

In Taco Bell’s Answer, 50 Cent is described as only lawyers would describe:

Plaintiff Jackson is a self-described former drug dealer and hustler. He is now a rap music performer who uses the term “50 Cent” to identify himself. His work falls in the subgenre of hip hop music known as “gangsta rap”, a style associated with urban street gangs and characterized by violent, tough-talking braggadocio.

Jackson has used his colorful past to cultivate a public image of belligerence and arrogance and has a well-publicized track record of making threats, starting feuds and filing lawsuits. At the same time, Jackson holds himself out as a giver to charity and one who wants to give back to his community.

This lawsuit is another of Jackson's attempts to burnish his gangsta rapper persona by distorting beyond all recognition a bona fide, good faith offer that Taco Bell made to Jackson.

Taco Bell describes its “challenge” of asking 50 Cent to change is name as a “soft ridicule and good-natured lampoon of the rapper's moniker, 50 Cent, and his public image as a tough gangsta rapper.” Taco Bell argues that the offer was a good natured parody of the rapper's name and provided 50 Cent with “an opportunity to give back to his community and a public forum to showcase a softer, playful side for his fans.”

Taco Bell claims it did not disseminate the letter in advertising or otherwise use Jackson's name in an advertising campaign, but rather sent the letter directly to 50 Cent’s agent. Of course, the letter was provided to the press, but only “because of the legitimate public interest in a charitable offer to a celebrity of Jackson's stature.” [Comment: Isn’t it up to 50 Cent to decide whether he would want to accept such an offer and have the public know about it – was Taco Bell trying to guilt 50 Cent into accepting the offer by publicizing it?] 50 Cent’s complaint described the letter as reading like “a poorly written voice-over for one of Taco Bell's television commercials.”

Taco Bell maintains that “The public had a right to know about the offer and whether Jackson would accept it, and Taco Bell had a Constitutionally protected right to make it.” [Comment: Taco Bell certainly had the right to make the offer, but the public had a right to know about the offer?]

Taco Bell concludes that 50 Cent could have simply answered Yes or No to the offer – and that “If Jackson simply had rejected the offer, that would have been the end of the matter.” [Comment: Of course, Taco Bell had already reaped the benefit of using 50 Cent’s name in connection with the "offer".]

Rather than 50 Cent just accepting or rejecting the offer, as Taco Bell puts it,

[I]nstead of responding to Taco Bell's sincere offer in the friendly and humorous spirit in which it was issued, Jackson launched an aggressive, offensive attack on Taco Bell in the press. In a heavily publicized sound bite, Jackson threatened legal action against Taco Bell stating, “When my legal team is finished with them, Taco Bell is going to have a new corporate slogan: 'We messed with the bull and got the horns.'“ Jackson then brought this lawsuit.”

Taco Bell describes 50 Cent’s actions as “a transparent attempt at self-promotion.” [Comment—not to be confused with a company that would send out "humourous" charitable offer that it knows full well will not be accepted by the recipient but which will garner some publicity for the company nonetheless.]

Taco Bell says that 50 Cent’s lawsuit “has garnered significant media coverage – considerably more, in fact, than Taco Bell's offer.” [Comment—But doesn’t Taco Bell also get publicity from the lawsuit?] Taco Bell argues that his claims fail as a matter of law because “Taco Bell did nothing more than make a legitimate, newsworthy offer to him and provide the public with information about that offer.”

Partial Victory for The Naked Cowboy in lawsuit over M&M cartoon ad

I’m a few days late on the district court decision (news reports here, here, and here) by Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing in part the lawsuit filed by Robert Burck (a/k/a “The Naked Cowboy”) against Mars Incorporated, the maker of M&Ms candies, over an M&M ad featuring a cartoon M&M guitar-playing street performer wearing a cowboy hat, boots, and underwear – all reminiscent of Burck’s alter ego. See Burck v. Mars, Incorporated et al, Case No. 08 Civ. 01330 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2008); see also my previous posting on the filing of Burck’s complaint here.

The court dismissed Burck’s state law right of privacy claim (i.e. right of publicity claim) on the basis that the M&M Cowboy character depicted in M&M’s ads were merely personifications that do not fall within the literal meaning of "portrait" or "picture" of a person as required by New York’s right of privacy statutes (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50 and 51) which protect against the "nonconsensual commercial appropriations of the name, portrait or picture of a living person”:

Here, there was no attempt to create a portrait or picture of Burck himself. Rather, the purportedly infringing images were M&M characters wearing Burck's signature outfit. The images were not portraits or pictures of Burck as The Naked Cowboy, but of M&Ms dressed as The Naked Cowboy. Thus, they do not violate sections 50 and 51, and accordingly, Burck's right of privacy claim is dismissed.

However, the judge denied Mars’ motion to dismiss Burck’s “false endorsement” claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act because consumers may mistakenly believe that The Naked Cowboy himself endorsed the copying of his "trademarked likeness" because the M&M Cowboy characters appear in a commercial setting (i.e., on the video billboard and inside the M&M World store).

The court added that the issue of whether M&M’s ads would be viewed as parodies, and thereby negating any likelihood of confusion or constitute a First Amendment fair use affirmative defense, raises factual questions that are inappropriate for deciding on a motion to dismiss.

I think Ron Coleman’s post on the decision on his Likelihood of Confusion® blog summarizes the situation most appropriately:

This case will settle, in all probability. It is hard to understand, however, how any rational fact finder could consider this use of the “concept” of the Naked Cowboy, and what he does, to cause likelihood of confusion here, as opposed to merely alluding to it, having fun with it — an homage. Again, we ask: Is a mere reference to a cultural phenomenon likely to make the average viewer think that phenomenon is the origin, sponsors, or “approver” of the referencer?

Asked another way -- doesn't anybody have a sense of humor anymore? There was a time when this type of “homage” would have been appreciated by the referencee because it served to reinforce that person's pop culture stature.

The Naked Cowboy Sues Over Cartoon M&M Ad Featuring His Likeness

Numerous news stories over the past few days (New York Post, CNN, and MSNBC) summarize very well the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Robert Burck (better known as "The Naked Cowboy") against Mars, Incorporated, the makers of M&Ms candy, and Chute Gerdeman, Inc., the alleged creator of the a cartoon M&M ad campaign, which included an M&M street performer that Burck alleges resembles his "Naked Cowboy" likeness (pictured above). See Burck v. Mars, Incorporated et al, Case No. 08 Civ. 01330 (S.D.N.Y. Filed February 11, 2008). The complaint can be downloaded here.



Burck obtained a registration for the mark NAKED COWBOY for various entertainment services on April 9, 2002. He obtained second registration on September 2, 2003, for a design mark resembling The Naked Cowboy’s likeness (pictured below) for various clothing items including, of course, underwear.

One thing I did learn from this lawsuit (although its probably well known to those living in New York City and other major metropolitan areas) – the term "busking" (the complaint calls "The Naked Cowboy" the most famous busker in the entertainment capital of the world).

Of course, the complaint does not answer the one question that we have always wondered – why does he call himself the "naked" cowboy? Shouldn’t he be named the "white underwear wearing" cowboy (admittedly, not as catchy).

Looks like "The Naked Cowboy" is going to be able buy some clothes with the nice monetary settlement that he will undoubtedly work out with Mars and Chute Gerdeman.

Company refiles trademark infringement lawsuits against two companies over Bob Marley name and likeness

While I’m not really a fan of the late reggae musician Robert Nesta Marley (aka Bob Marley), a lot of people are and this fame has made the late musician’s name and likeness very valuable to his heirs.

A company named Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. (“Fifty-Six Hope Road”), a Bahamas International Business Company which is owned and operated by Marley’s 12 children, owns the intellectual property rights to Bob Marley’s name and likeness.

Fifty-Six Hope Road obtained a federal trademark registration for the mark BOB MARLEY on May 16, 2000 for eleven classes of goods, including T-shirts, jewelry, greeting cards, wallets, mugs, and smoking pipes. Fifty-Six Hope Road entered into a licensing agreement with Zion Rootswear LLC (“Zion”), a Florida corporation, granting Zion an exclusive worldwide license to use the Bob Marley intellectual property on various goods.

The companies have a history of rigorously enforcing these trademark rights. See article here about one past trademark infringement lawsuit and here about the well-publicized dispute with Verizon over Marley-based ringtones.

In the last week, the companies have filed two new trademark infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada going after a Canadian jeans company and a movie poster company.

The first suit was filed on January 18, 2008 by Fifty-Six Hope Road and Zion against Fame Jeans, Inc. and Charles Freidman . See Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. Fame Jeans, Inc. et al, Case No. 08-CV-00082 (D. Nev.). The second suit was filed on January 23, 2008, by Fifty-Six Hope Road and Zion against A.V.E.L.A., Inc. (the Art and Vintage Entertainment Licensing Agency) and Leo Valencia. See Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc. et al, Case No. 08-CV-00105 (D. Nev.).

Without reading the complaints, the lawsuits most likely allege registered trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. §1114), federal trademark infringement and unfair competition (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)), and common law trademark infringement arising from defendants' sale of clothing and posters displaying Marley’s name (a registered trademark), picture, or some other likeness.

One strange aspect about these new lawsuits is that the defendants in these two lawsuits are the same named defendants from a previous trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Fifty-Six Hope Road and Zion on February 14, 2007. See Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. Fame Jeans et al, Case No. 07-CV-00194 (D. Nev.). That case, however, was voluntarily dismissed by Fifty-Six Hope Road and Zion on November 29, 2007. I'm sure the companies had their reasons for dismissing the prior suits and refiling them separately.

Hallmark Files Motion to Dismiss Against Paris Hilton

On November 2, 2007, Hallmark Cards, Incorporated (“Hallmark”) filed its Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Paris Hilton’s right of publicity and trademark infringement lawsuit over a Hallmark greeting card that used her image and her registered trademark “That’s Hot” (the “Card”) (Vegas™Esq blogged here). A copy of the motion can be downloaded here (courtesy of pitch.com).

The filing gave news reporters today great fodder for witty headlines. See MSNBC (“Hallmark thinks Paris’ lawsuit is not hot”), the Post Chronicle (“Hallmark Cold To Paris Hilton Over "That's Hot" Lawsuit”), Entertainmentwise.com (“Hallmark To Paris Hilton: 'You're A Publicity Seeker!'”), and Glosslip.com (“Hallmark: When You Care Enough To Make Fun Of Paris Hilton”).

From the very first paragraph of Hallmark’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Memo”), Hallmark comes out with guns blazing: “Paris Whitney Hilton (‘Hilton’) is a privileged, jet-setting heiress to the Hilton family fortune, the center-of-attention ‘celebutante’ at the most lavish parties and exclusive events, and a consummate self-promoter who, by her own admission, considers working ‘manual, low-paying jobs’ and serving the public to be her ‘private nightmare.’” Memo at 1.

Hallmark seeks to dismiss Hilton’s claims for misappropriation of her common law right of publicity, false designation of origin, and federal trademark infringement.

First Amendment Argument
Hallmark’s primary argument is that its greeting cards constitute expression protected by the First Amendment. Hallmark cites to Tenth Circuit’s decision in Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Assn., 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1996) which found parody baseball cards to be protected speech. Hallmark argues that its greeting cards are just as expressive if not more so than trading cards and that greeting cards have been recognized as “the embodiment of humor, praise, regret or some other message in a pictorial and literary arrangement.” Memo at 8. Hallmark characterizes the Card as “not only entertainment and parody, but also social commentary and criticism of Hilton’s lifestyle and belief system.” Id.

Right of Publicity Claim
With respect to Hilton’s common law right of publicity claim, Hallmark argues that its use of Paris Hilton’s name and likeness was not for a commercial purpose (i.e. advertising, endorsements, or commercials) as required to state a right of publicity claim, but rather expressive speech (citing Cardtoons).

Hallmark then goes through a long discussion regarding the “transformative use” test to “determine whether a work merely appropriates a celebrity’s economic value, and thus is not entitled to First Amendment protection, or has been transformed into a creative product that the First Amendment protects.” Winter v. DC Comics, 30 Cal. 4th 881, 888 (2003). In short, the use of a celebrity’s image is protected by the First Amendment and does not violate such celebrity’s right of publicity when the work using the image contains such transformative elements as parody, caricature, and other types of distortion as to create a new expression (in contrast to a literal depiction of such celebrity). Hallmark argues that the Card used Hilton’s image in a transformative way – placing an oversized photograph of Hilton over a cartoon body making her appear as a waitress (which Hilton apparently calls her own “private nightmare” in her Amended Complaint) with a dialogue that uses her catchphrase in a literal sense in describing the patron’s food.

Finally, Hallmark cites the “public interest” as a defense to Hilton’s right of publicity claim citing Hilton’s notoriety and public figure status make her a fair target for Hallmark’s expression.

False Designation of Origin
With respect to Hilton’s allegations that Hallmark’s use of her name and likeness create a false designation of origin in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 USC §1125(a)), Hallmark cites to several cases for the proposition that the First Amendment bars Hilton’s Lanham Act claim in much the same way it bars her right of publicity claim. See Kirby v. Sega of America, 144 Cal.App.4th 47 (Cal. App. 2nd 2006); ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’s, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003); Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001).

Hallmark also argues that the “nominative use doctrine” protects Hallmark’s use of Hilton’s name and likeness (the mark at issue in the Lanham Act claim) which were used to express commentary about and parody of Hilton. The doctrine (sometimes called the “nominative fair use defense”) allows a party to use or refer to another party’s trademark if the product or service in question cannot readily identifiable without use of the trademark, the use is only so much as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service, and the use does nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. See New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992). Without commenting on the first two prongs of the test, Hallmark argues that its use of Hilton’s name and likeness, as a parody, did not suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Hilton.

Finally, Hallmark argues that the likelihood of confusion test is inappropriate for expressive works that incorporate a trademark. Hallmark cites the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), where the court found that the use of the term “Barbie” in the “Barbie Girl” song was not trademark infringement and was protected by the First Amendment because the mark was relevant to the work and the use was not misleading as to sponsorship or endorsement. Hallmark asserts that in the case of Hilton’s “image and likeness,” Hallmark’s use in the Card was artistically relevant and not specifically misleading as to sponsorship or endorsement. Furthermore, even if the likelihood of confusion test were applied to Hallmark’s use of Hilton’s “image and likeness,” the parodic nature of the Card is so obvious that it would not cause any consumer to believe that Hilton created the Card or otherwise endorsed the Card.

Hallmark also adds that Hilton, as a public figure, fails to plead and prove with clear and convincing evidence that Hallmark’s use of her “image and likeness” was done with actual malice. Citing Hoffman, Hallmark argues that Hilton has not shown clear and convincing evidence that Hallmark intended to create a false impression in the mind of consumers that the image of Hilton on the Card was her or that Hilton was somehow endorsing the Card.

Federally Registered Trademark Infringement
With respect to Hilton’s allegations that Hallmark’s use of the word “That’s Hot” on the Card infringes Hilton’s registered trademark for THAT’S HOT, Hallmark reiterates most of the same arguments set forth to dispute Hilton’s false designation of origin claim. First, Hallmark’s Card is protected speech under the First Amendment, and Hilton’s allegation of infringement of the “That’s Hot” trademark is barred. Second, the use of the words “That’s Hot” is protected by the nominative use doctrine – such use was for parody and not to designate any goods or services or to serve as an indicator of source, sponsorship, or affiliation. Third, the likelihood of confusion test should not apply because the use of “That’s Hot” on the Card was artistically relevant to the Card and was not misleading as to suggest that the Card was sponsored or endorsed by Hilton. And even if such test were applicable, the obvious parodic nature of the Card would not cause any consumer to believe that Hilton created the Card or otherwise endorsed the Card.

Finally, Hallmark adds that Hilton’s registration for THAT’S HOT does not cover greeting cards. When Hilton originally filed her Section 1(b) intent-to-use application, it included among various goods and services “paper goods” and “printed materials” (in Class 16). However, on September 9, 2005, in response to the USPTO’s office action dividing her goods and services into several different classes, Hilton chose to delete the Class 16 goods and proceeded to prosecute the application for various clothing items in Class 25, and which was the scope of the application when it ultimately registered on February 13, 2007.

Summary
Hallmark summarizes its argument against Hilton very well early on in the Memo: “Hallmark’s Card parodies Hilton, her silver-spoon upbringing, her lavish lifestyle and her oft-repeated, vapid use of the catchphrase ‘that’s hot.’ Like the countless other parodies, comic strips and editorials that have taken aim at this self-described ‘cultural icon’ of society, the Card is fully protected speech under the United States and California Constitutions.” Memo at 2.

I should add that the Memo is full of interesting descriptions and characterizations of Hilton and her notoriety that could only come from a lawyer. My favorite -- “Hilton indisputably attracts vast amounts of attention and publicity – much of it as a result of her own efforts and actions. Seemingly every aspect of her life is fodder for the press and for water cooler conversation – form her television appearances, to the lavish lifestyle she leads, to her party hopping, to her romances and sexual escapades (whether videotaped or not), to her high fashion clothing, to her idioms, to her incarceration (and controversial early release) and to various other legal issues – including even the filing of this lawsuit.” Memo at 13-14

Now that’s hot!

To be Ric Flair, you gotta beat Ric Flair . . . in court.

MyrtleBeachOnline.com ran a story today entitled “Wrestler smacks S.C. car dealer with lawsuit” about a lawsuit filed by a World Wresting Entertainment (WWE) wrestler against a South Carolina car dealership.

On October 4, 2007, Richard Fliehr, better known to WWE fans as Ric “Nature Boy” Flair, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against Stivers Automotive of Columbia, Inc., the owner of a Columbia, South Carolina car dealership named Freedom Suzuki which allegedly used Flair's name, likeness and slogans in some of its car advertisements without Flair's permission (see Case Number 3:2007cv03315).

The car dealership allegedly used two of Flair’s famous catchphrases "Woooooo!" and "To be the man, you gotta beat the man!" One radio ad had a character named Captain Freedom saying “Whoeee ... To be the man you got to beat the man! Ric Flair was right all you other car dealers out there." Captain Freedom also told listeners to "Come check out me and the WWE" at the Colonial Center on Aug. 21, which was around the time when Flair was scheduled to appear at a WWE event at the Colonial Center. According to Flair’s lawyer, Stivers Automotive apparently contacted the WWE to get permission to use Flair’s name in their ads, but permission was denied.

Without seeing the complaint, its not clear if Flair is alleging Section 43(a) false designation of origin or a state-law based right of publicity filed in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, which would explain why he is seeking actual and punitive damages of more than $75,000.

As most people familiar with the WWE (formerly WWF, which is an interesting trademark story of its own) know, Mr. Flair does not hold the trademark to his own name, or at least not the one under which he wrestles. That would be the intellectual property of World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc., which holds the trademark RIC FLAIR for clothing, for various toy items, and, most importantly, for entertainment services, namely wrestling exhibits and performances by a professional wrestler and entertainer.