Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/33422369/Martha-Hart-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-02-20 20:34:55
Document Index: 450318088

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1332', '§ 1391', '§ 1125', 'art. 71', 'art. 93', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42']

Martha Hart Complaint
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT __________________________________________ ) MARTHA HART, as personal representative of ) THE ESTATE OF OWEN JAMESHART, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, ) INC., VINCE MCMAHON and ) LINDA MCMAHON ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Martha Hart, as personal representative of the Estate of Owen James Hart (“Estate”), by and through its attorneys, Nixon Peabody LLP, alleges for her Complaint for Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Accounting, and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices against Defendants World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“WWE”), Vince McMahon and Linda E. McMahon as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiff Martha Hart, the widow of Owen James Hart, sues defendants WWE and Vince McMahon and Linda McMahon, the WWE’s current and/or past owners, officers and principal decision makers, for their wrongful usurpation of Martha’s right, as personal representative of her husband’s estate, to control Owen’s likeness, name and celebrity. Owen Hart died on May 23, 1999 when he fell from an apparatus approximately 80 feet high into a wrestling ring before a crowd of 16,500 in a reckless and dangerous stunt that was negligently planned, orchestrated and directed
12979284.7
-2by the WWE, namely Vince and Linda McMahon. Defendants insisted that Owen perform the stunt despite knowing he was uncomfortable with such extreme heights and the manner he was to descend and hired grossly inadequate personnel and equipment to enhance the stunt’s theatrical effect. Defendants have never once apologized to Martha or Owen’s and her children for their role in causing Owen’s death. For this reason and others, Martha has refused all association of her late husband’s image, likeness and name with the WWE, Mr. McMahon or Mrs. McMahon since Owen’s death. 2. Over the last eleven years, Martha has established and grown the Owen Hart Foundation (“Foundation”) as a tribute to Owen and his passions outside of the wrestling ring. The Foundation devotes its resources to providing scholarships and housing to “hard-working people who have limited resources and unlimited potential.” Martha began the Foundation with proceeds from her $18 million settlement with defendants for Owen’s death and has tirelessly pursued the twin goals of fund-raising for, and promoting awareness of, the Foundation through annual events profiling internationally renowned entertainers (including Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Cosby, Bob Newhart, and Ringo Starr). A key component of the Foundation’s strategy and success has been Martha’s public and private disassociation of Owen’s name and likeness from anything WWE or McMahon related and her outspoken criticism of the WWE and the McMahons. 3. Since Owen’s death, the WWE and McMahons have sought every available opportunity to further exploit Owen’s personality for their own commercial benefit. Their use of Owen’s name and likeness draws attention to the WWE’s ongoing
-3violent and highly questionable theatrical activities that caused Owen’s death. Defendants’ use of Owen’s name and likeness is also in direct disregard of Martha’s and her children’s objections. Most recently, the WWE produced and distributed an April 2010 video entitled “Hart & Soul: The Hart Family Anthology” that features Owen’s legal name and likeness on its cover, in its content and its web-based sales and promotional materials. The WWE’s wrongful use of Owen’s name and likeness, over Martha’s continuing objection to any association with defendants and in the absence of any legal right of use, creates the wrongful impression that Martha and the Estate now support, approve or condone the video (which they do not). Moreover, the WWE’s wrongful use of Owen’s name and likeness breaches and has breached the Estate’s intellectual property rights in Owen’s celebrity, breaches and has breached other contracts that existed between Owen and the WWE at the time of his death, and is otherwise inequitable and an unfair and deceptive trade practice under applicable law. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Martha Hart is the widow and representative of the Estate of Owen James Hart, deceased. She is a citizen of the province of Calgary, Canada. 5. Upon information and belief, defendant World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“WWE”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 1241 East Main Street, Stamford, Connecticut. At all material times, WWE has organized, operated and promoted entertainment featuring professional wrestling personalities under the name “World Wrestling Entertainment.” WWE is the successor to Titan Sports, Inc. (“Titan”).
-46. Upon information and belief, defendant Vincent K. McMahon is a natural person and citizen of Connecticut. Vince McMahon is Chairman and CEO of WWE, and has been, with his wife Linda, the principal force behind its commercial activities since its inception. 7. Upon information and belief, defendant Linda E. McMahon is a natural person and citizen of Connecticut. Linda E. McMahon is the former CEO of WWE, and has been, with her husband Vince, the principal force behind its commercial activities. Moreover, she authorized and signed the primary contract between Owen Hart and the WWE that the WWE has repeatedly breached. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2) because the parties are citizens of a state and citizen of a foreign State and the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Estate’s claims occurred in this judicial district. In addition, the underlying contract between Owen Hart and the WWE provides that the claims asserted herein be brought in this venue. FACTS THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT 10. Owen Hart was a highly successful professional wrestler and entertainer, having performed around the world for 13 years until his tragic death in 1999. 11. Throughout his wrestling career and in his personal life, Owen was known as a humanitarian. He supported numerous charitable and philanthropic causes and had a reputation for integrity and compassion that eclipsed his wrestling persona.
-512. On July 1, 1996, Owen, then age 31, signed as a professional wrestler with the WWE, and the WWE agreed to act as his promoter (“Booking Agreement”) (attached hereto at Exhibit A). 13. Defendant Linda E. McMahon, then the principal officer of the WWE, signed the Booking Agreement on behalf of Titan Sports, Inc. 14. Under Section 3.1 of the Booking Agreement, Owen and Titan agreed that “Original Intellectual Property” includes: all service marks, trademarks and any and all other distinctive and identifying indicia under which WRESTLER claims any rights, including but not limited to his/her legal name, his/her ring name, likeness, personality, character, caricatures, voice, signature, costumes, props, gimmicks, gestures, routines and themes, which are owned by WRESTLER or in which WRESTLER has any rights anywhere in the world (collectively, the ‘Original Intellectual Property’) […] 15. Although Owen assigned his rights in Original Intellectual Property to Titan and its successors during the term of the Booking Agreement, Titan agreed that control over and the exclusive right to use “Original Intellectual Property” reverted to Owen upon termination of the Booking Agreement. 16. Titan and Owen agreed that Titan has exclusive rights to “New Intellectual Property,” defined under the Booking Agreement at Section 3.2(a)(i) as: With the exception of the Original Intellectual Property, service marks, trademarks and/or distinctive and identifying indicia, including ring name, likeness, personality, Character, caricatures, voice, signature, costumes, props, gimmicks, gestures, routines, themes, used by or associated with WRESTLER’s performance in the business of professional wrestling or sports entertainment during the term of this Agreement are hereby assigned to and shall belong to PROMOTER in perpetuity with PROMOTER retaining all such ownership rights exclusively throughout the world notwithstanding any termination of this Agreement.
-617. New Intellectual Property also includes certain trademarks, service marks, ring names, characters, persona and related intellectual property created by Titan during the term of its earlier contracts with Owen. 18. Under Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of the Booking Agreement, Owen, and now his Estate, was to receive 25% of the net receipts from licensed commercial products utilizing Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property or the pro rata share of 25% of the proceeds of such licensed products when used in conjunction with other talent (“Licensed Product Royalties”). 19. Under Sections 7.5 and 7.6 of the Booking Agreement, Owen, and now his Estate, was to receive 5% of the net receipts from direct sale of commercial products utilizing Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property or its pro rata share of 25% of sale proceeds when Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property is used in conjunction with other talent (“Direct Sales Royalties”). 20. Under Section 7.8 of the Booking Agreement, Owen, and now his Estate, was to receive 25% of the net receipts from video products utilizing Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property or its pro rata share of 25% of such proceeds when Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property was used in conjunction with other talent (“Video Royalties”). 21. Titan and Owen agreed that the Booking Agreement would terminate upon Owen’s death pursuant to Section 11.2. Such termination did not, however, end Titan’s royalty payment obligation under the Booking Agreement. OWEN’S TRAGIC DEATH 22. On May 23, 1999, Owen fell to his death at the Kemper Arena in Kansas City, Missouri, while performing a dangerous and reckless stunt planned, orchestrated and
-7directed by the WWE and Vince and Linda McMahon as part of a pay-per-view wrestling event organized by the WWE. Defendants required Owen to perform the stunt despite knowing that he disapproved of it, had a fear of such extreme heights and the manner of descent and had almost fallen during a previous descent that the WWE required him to perform. 23. At the time of his death, Owen was a Canadian citizen and resident of Calgary. 24. Shortly after Owen’s death, Martha Hart, Owen’s widow, along with their minor children and Owen’s parents, sued Titan, Vince McMahon, Linda McMahon and the manufacturer of stunt apparatus which failed Owen for wrongful death. The lawsuit alleged that the stunt was dangerous and poorly-planned and that the apparatus chosen for the stunt by the McMahons was defective and completely inappropriate. In the suit, Martha and her children, along with Owen’s parents, sought to recover damages for Owen’s death. 25. In response to Martha’s suit, and in an attempt to intimidate and deter her from pressing her claim, Titan, at Vince and Linda McMahon’s direction, counter-sued Martha in Connecticut, claiming that she had breached the Booking Agreement by bringing a wrongful death action against them. This tactic is entirely consistent with defendants’ belief that intimidation, strength and pressure are the appropriate way to run a business and treat business partners. 26. Notwithstanding Titan’s suit against Martha, she was undeterred and persevered in her efforts to obtain compensation for her family and the Hart family for Owen’s needless death. The lawsuits were eventually settled out of court, with Titan paying a multi-million dollar settlement to the Hart family, and dismissing its baseless suit
-8against Martha. Despite this, defendants have never acknowledged their culpability in Owen’s death or so much as apologized to Martha and Owen’s children. MARTHA CREATES THE OWEN HART FOUNDATION AND TAKES ALL STEPS POSSIBLE TO DISTANCE IT AND OWEN HART’S NAME FROM THE WWE 27. In December 2000, after settlement of the lawsuit against Titan, Martha established The Owen Hart Foundation (“Foundation”). Its two signature charitable priorities are scholarships and housing. The Foundation also partners with other worthy causes that share its vision, such as school lunch programs that feed low-income children. As demonstrated by its mission statement of : “help[ing] hard-working people who have limited resources and unlimited potential,” the Foundation is the antithesis of the WWE and McMahons whose only mission is to promote themselves and their organization through theatrical acts of violence and intimidation. 28. Building this tribute to Owen and his children has given Martha strength and saved her from despair over Owen’s death. 29. The Foundation has experienced tremendous growth and success over its ten year history. Today, the Foundation is able to attract high profile entertainers such as Ringo Starr, Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Cosby, Howie Mandel and Bob Newhart, who participate in supporting its fund-raising events and celebrating Owen’s memory through the Foundation’s good works. 30. Since Owen’s death, Martha and Owen’s children have steadfastly avoided associating with the WWE or the McMahons because they were responsible for Owen’s death and have a public image that is inconsistent with Foundation’s good works. Contrary to the WWE and McMahons, Martha, Owen’s children and the Foundation want nothing to do with violent and highly questionable theatrical events.
-931. Martha and Owen’s children have also made their distaste for and disapproval of defendants generally known. Indeed, it is of paramount importance to the Estate that Owen’s name and likeness, which are now commonly recognized as representing kindness, tenderness and social responsibility, have no association with the WWE, which is known for encouraging performers to commit an array lewd acts or be perceived by the public as approving or endorsing any WWE event or product. 32. Since Owen’s death, the Estate has worked diligently to suitably memorialize Owen’s life, including the 2002 publication of Martha’s book, “Broken Harts: the Life and Death of Owen Hart,” describing Owen’s life and tragic death. Martha’s book prominently featured Owen’s name and likeness on its cover and throughout its contents. Martha donated the proceeds from sales of the book to a charity on behalf of the Foundation. 33. On August 5, 2002, in association with the publication of the book, the Estate registered a copyright to the life story of Owen James Hart. WWE PUBLISHES AN UNAUTHORIZED VIDEO USING OWEN’S LEGAL NAME AND LIKENESS WITHOUT THE ESTATE’S PERMISSION 34. Earlier this year, the WWE, at the direction of the McMahons, or to further their interests, produced a video entitled “Hart & Soul: The Hart Family Anthology” (the “Video”) that purports to chronicle the life of the Hart family, including Owen. 35. In April 2010, approximately 90,000 copies of the Video were produced of which 52,000 copies shipped to retail stores in the United States, 12,000 shipped to a Canadian distributor and 20,000 copies remain in inventory for eventual international distribution.
- 10 36. The Video is currently available for sale, including online at websites owned or controlled by defendants. 37. The List price of the Video is $34.95. If all current copies are sold, sales could reach a total of $3,145,500, exclusive of any additional copies produced to meet additional demand. 38. The packaging and promotional materials for the Video display Owen’s legal name and likeness on the exterior of the Video’s package. For instance, on the cover of the Video, defendants have used Owen’s legal name to promote and sensationalize its contents. 39. The online promotional materials for the Video, including on websites owned or controlled by defendants, also contain descriptions of the Video that utilize Owen’s legal name. Some of these descriptions also make reference to the circumstances of Owen’s death as a further way to draw attention to the content of the Video. 40. The Video also contains several pictures of Owen from his childhood and before he signed any contract with the WWE. 41. Defendants did not seek or obtain the Estate’s consent to use Owen’s likeness or legal name or other Original Intellectual Property for promoting or packaging the Video, and have no right to do so without the consent of the Estate. 42. Defendants’ misappropriation of Owen’s legal name and likeness in promoting the Video is their blatant attempt to associate Owen with them, profit from his name and likeness and suggest to the world that he and his family approve of defendants violent and morally questionable theatrical events. Defendants’ conduct has resulted in their
- 11 commercial gain and unjust enrichment, damage to the Estate and serves no public interest. 43. The release of the Video, with its use of Owen’s legal name on the cover and use of his likeness throughout, has caused irreparable harm to the Estate, which exercises strict control over the use of Owen’s legal name and image in association with products, services and causes. 44. The Video has tainted the Foundation’s image by creating the false impression that the Estate has now abandoned its longstanding policy of disassociating itself from all matters WWE and McMahon-related. As a result, defendants have damaged and continue to damage the Foundation’s reputation that it has unrelentingly built up for ten years. THE ESTATE SUES TO PREVENT RELEASE OF THE VIDEO IN CANADA AND DISCOVERS ADDITIONAL AND REPEATED MISAPPROPRIATIONS OF HART’S NAME AND LIKENESS 45. Martha and the Estate learned of the release and dissemination of the Video on or around March 20, 2010. 46. On March 25, 2010, the Estate, through counsel, immediately notified WWE that it had no permission to use Owen’s legal name or likeness in connection with the Video; nevertheless, the WWE released the Video for sale. 47. On March 29, 2010, the Estate initiated legal proceeding against WWE’s Canadian affiliates seeking to enjoin distribution of the Video in Canada. 48. In the Canadian legal proceedings, Martha and the Estate learned for the first time that the WWE at the direction of the McMahon defendants had made many unauthorized commercial uses of Owen’s name and likeness in addition to the Video.
- 12 49. During the course of the Canadian action, WWE disclosed that it had routinely violated the Booking Agreement by repeatedly, and without permission of the Estate, displaying Owen’s name and likeness in or on, or in connection with: (a) at least 37 DVDs released by the WWE, with his name displayed on the
packaging of 7 of them; (b) multiple segments of the DVD, “Bret 'the Hit Man' Hart: The Best There
is...”, including in a chapter to the DVD entitled, “The Death of Owen Hart;” (c) (d) (e) (f) WWE television programs; WWE website; an online subscription service through WWE.com; and the “WWE Encyclopedia – The Definitive Guide to World Wrestling
Entertainment,” in which his picture and/or name appears 7 times. 50. The Canadian lawsuit was the first time the Estate learned about these violations. 51. On information and belief, such materials include Owen’s Original Intellectual Property. 52. No Royalty payments have been paid to the Estate on account of any of these commercial product sales. COUNT I FALSE ASSOCIATION 53. Plaintiff repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 52 of the Complaint. 54. The Estate of Owen James Hart retains sole legal right over the name and likeness of Owen James Hart, exclusive of New Intellectual Property.
- 13 55. The Estate has intentionally permitted the Owen Hart Foundation to use Owen James Hart’s name and likeness, exclusive of New Intellectual Property, for the furtherance of its charitable works and goals. 56. The Estate has intentionally refused to associate with defendants or permit defendants to use Owen James Hart’s name and likeness or other Original Intellectual Property. 57. Defendants have not sought or received the Estate’s permission for the use of Owen James Hart’s name or likeness or other Original Intellectual Property. 58. Defendants have produced the Video and other goods and promotions that impermissibly appropriate Owen James Hart’s name, likeness and other Original Intellectual Property. 59. Such unauthorized use of Owen James Hart’s name and likeness constitutes a false association in violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125). 60. The Video and other goods and promotions have lead to confusion in the marketplace as to the association, sponsorship or approval of the Estate and/or Foundation with the Video and other goods and promotions and defendants. 61. This confusion has benefitted defendants by impermissibly appropriating the goodwill generated by the Foundation. 62. This confusion has harmed the Estate by damaging its reputation through impermissibly implying its association with defendants. WHEREFORE, the Estate demands judgment against defendants for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, injunctive relief, together with interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate.
- 14 COUNT II INVASION OF PRIVACY 63. The Estate repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 62 of the Complaint. 64. The Estate of Owen James Hart retains sole legal right and title to the name and likeness of Owen James Hart except as specifically provided in the Booking Agreement. 65. Defendants have not sought or received the Estate’s permission to use Owen James Hart’s name and likeness. 66. Defendants have repeatedly appropriated Owen James Hart’s name and likeness beyond their rights in the New Intellectual Property. 67. The Estate has been harmed by this invasion of privacy. WHEREFORE, the Estate demands judgment against defendants for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, injunctive relief, together with interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate. COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT – UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ORIGINAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 68. The Estate repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 67 of the Complaint. 69. Pursuant to Section 3.2 (b) of the Booking Agreement, ownership and use of Original Intellectual Property, including Hart’s legal name, ring name, likeness, personality, character, caricatures, voice, signature, costumes, props, gimmicks, gestures, routines and themes in which he had rights, reverted to Owen Hart upon the termination of the Booking Agreement.
- 15 70. Pursuant to Section 11.2 of Booking Agreement, the Agreement was terminated upon the death of the Owen James Hart. 71. Defendants have used Original Intellectual Property, including in the Video, after ownership reverted to Owen Hart upon the termination of the contract. 72. The Estate has been damaged by defendants’ breach of the obligation not to use the Original Intellectual Property. WHEREFORE, the Estate demands judgment against defendants for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate. COUNT IV COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR USE OF LIKENESS 73. The Estate repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 72 of the Complaint. 74. The Estate of Owen James Hart retains sole legal right, including copyright, over use of the Original Intellectual Property, including the legal name, ring name, likeness, personality, character, caricatures, voice, signature, costumes, props, gimmicks, gestures, routines and themes of Owen James Hart, exclusive of New Intellectual Property. 75. Defendants have not sought permission for commercial use of the name and likeness of Owen James Hart beyond New Intellectual Property. 76. Defendants have repeatedly utilized the name and likeness of Owen James Hart, beyond New Intellectual Property, for commercial purposes without express written permission of the Estate. 77. The Estate has been harmed by this violation of its copyright.
- 16 WHEREFORE, the Estate demands judgment against defendants for damages to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate. COUNT V BREACH OF BOOKING AGREEMENT BY DEFENDANTS --FAILURE TO PAY ROYALTIES 78. The Estate repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 77 of the Complaint. 79. Under Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of the Booking Agreement, the Estate is entitled to 25% of the net receipts from commercial products utilizing Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property or its pro rata share of 25% of sale proceeds when Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property is utilized in conjunction with other talent (“Royalties”). 80. Under Sections 7.5 and 7.6 of the Booking Agreement, the Estate is entitled to 5% of the net receipts from direct sale commercial products utilizing Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property or the pro rata share of 25% of such proceeds when Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property is utilized in conjunction with other talent (“Direct Sales Royalties”). 81. Under Sections 7.8 of the Booking Agreement, the Estate is entitled to 25% of the net receipts from video products utilizing Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property or the pro rata share of 25% of the proceeds when utilized in conjunction with other talent (“Video Royalties”).
- 17 82. As the WWE admitted in a sworn statement filed with the Canadian courts, defendants have repeatedly used the name and likeness of Owen James Hart since 1999 without the Estate’s permission. 83. Defendants have paid the Estate no royalties since 1999 despite an obligation to do so. 84. The Estate has been damaged by defendants’ breach of the obligation to pay Royalties to the Estate. WHEREFORE, the Estate demands judgment against defendants for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate. COUNT VI UNJUST ENRICHMENT 85. The Estate repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 of the Complaint. 86. Since 1997, defendants have been and continue to be obligated to pay plaintiff Royalties pursuant to the Booking Agreement. 87. Despite their obligation to do so, defendants failed to pay plaintiff royalties due and owing under the Booking Agreement. 88. Defendant’s failure to compensate the Estate constitutes unjust enrichment. WHEREFORE, the Estate demands judgment against defendants for the royalties due and owing under the Booking Agreement, together with interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate.
- 18 COUNT VII ACCOUNTING 89. The Estate repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 88 of the Complaint. 90. Pursuant to Section 7.12(a) of the Booking Agreement, the Estate is entitled to an accounting. 91. No such accounting has been granted to the Estate. 92. The calculation of the monetary amounts in this action is based on estimates of defendants’ sales and revenue from materials and merchandise that used the name and likeness of Owen James Hart. 93. The accuracy of this estimate cannot be confirmed without an accounting of the receipts and disbursements, profit and loss statements and other financial materials, statements and books from defendants. WHEREFORE, the Estate demands judgment ordering defendants to account to plaintiff for any and all revenue derived as a result of the marketing, promoting or selling of products that include or reference Owen’s Original Intellectual Property. COUNT VIII VIOLATION OF CUTPA 94. The Estate repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Complaint. 95. Defendants are engaged in the conduct of trade and commerce in the State of Connecticut within the meaning of C.G.S. § 42-110a et seq. 96. Defendants have offended public policy as it has been established by common law, statute and otherwise, and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
- 19 (“CUTPA”), § 42-110b, by willfully and maliciously engaging in unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in trade and commerce by misappropriating Owen Hart’s life story and Original Intellectual Property, breaching their contractual obligations, and profiting therefrom to the loss and detriment of the Estate. 97. The Estate has suffered damages and an ascertainable loss as defined by C.G.S. § 42-110g(a). 98. A copy of this Complaint will be served upon the Attorney General and Commissioner of Consumer Protection in accordance with C.G.S. § 42-110g(c). WHEREFORE, the Estate demands judgment against defendants for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, doubled or trebled where appropriate, its attorney’s fees in this matter, interest, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate. COUNT IX VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 99. The Estate repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 98 of the Complaint. 100.The Estate retains sole legal right and title to Owen James Hart’s name and likeness except as specifically provided in the Booking Agreement. 101.Defendants have repeatedly appropriated Owen James Hart’s name and likeness beyond their rights in the New Intellectual Property for a commercial purpose and have benefitted commercially from such misappropriation. 102.Defendants have not sought or received the Estate’s permission to use Owen James Hart’s name and likeness.
- 20 103.The defendants’ use of Owen James Hart’s name and likeness is likely to cause damage to the commercial value of his persona. 104.The Estate has been damaged by this damage in the commercial value to Owen James Hart’s persona WHEREFORE, the Estate demands judgment against defendants for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, injunctive relief, together with interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted, MARTHA HART, personal representative of THE ESTATE OF OWEN JAMES HART, By her attorneys, /s/ Stacie Boeniger Collier Stacie Boeniger Collier (CT-18895) NIXON PEABODY LLP One Citizens Plaza Providence, RI 02903 (401) 454-1000 sbcollier@nixonpeabody.com and Arthur L. Pressman (pro hac vice pending) Gregg A. Rubenstein (pro hac vice pending) Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero (pro hac vice pending) NIXON PEABODY LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 345-1000 apressman@nixonpeabody.com grubenstein@nixonpeabody.com rrrauseoricupero@nixonpeabody.com Dated: June 22, 2010
- 21 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all claims so triable.
More From This UserSkip carouselGenocide Report by Knights of ColumbusLawsuit brought by Maren Sanchez's motherLetter from Jack Montague's attorneyAngela Skyers affidavitKonowaloff Appeal Order and JudgmentThe Divestment PenaltyWhite-nose syndrome in bats by Chris WisniewskiExit 44 off-ramp and Sea StreetWest River SiteMap (2) (1).pdfConley Monk v. Mabus lawsuitExit 44 northboundExit 44, southboundSikhism in the United States reportLawsuit in May 17, 2013, Metro-North derailmentOSHA report on Metro-North complaintMetro-North 2014 Customer Satisfaction surveyConsequential BoardsDowntown Crossing Phase 2Conductor's letter to customersPlanned realignment of Routes 1 and 1222014 Roadmap of State Highway Safety LawsI-95 north to I-91 Before and AfterBill for copies sent to O'Brien campaignAlternate routes to avoid traffic shift area July 27-29Lane, ramp closures on I-95 southbound
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulMartha Hart Complaint by estannard0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedIPRCouncilsRevOrdinance27Jul2005Voted12DecJul2006by 608943Ipr Enforcement Mechanisms in India- Abstractby Tannya BrahmeWood v. Little Caesar, Ilitch, Shemami, et al - First Amended Complaint as Filedby Archive It Legalby Indra KumarMackaay_IP_CivilLawSyst-4by vir2000Valuation of Taxpayer IP Assets (2012 Willamette)by So LokFuturising seminar slides :: Laurence Kayeby Minh Vu Proposal for a revision of the Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (Directive 2004/48/EC)by reporti_netbusiness lawby Saurabh AgarwalPhilosophy Paper Finalby Vibhu ChandrashekharThe Public Domain 1by DanielMarioVegaIP Lawby Kwalar KingThe Philosophy of Intellectual Propertyby Arabella Grace MadrigalUnderstanding Copyright and Related Rightsby sikandermarriPractice Case IMPORTATby Ryan AnatanRight of Intellectualby Alexandra Osiceanu MaiducMethodology Teachingby Mayo FalmontiUnit 7 ENT600 Intellectual Propertyby MXR-3Intellectual property lawby TaranMakerere University Ipm Policy (1)by noonyaCatalogue eby mayurghodindeClaimant Advance Ip on traditional Knowledgeby ShekharPratapSinghA Libertarian Critique of Intellectual Property - Butler Shaffer.pdfby PolyushkoPolyeipr1by ashwin_nakmanInformation Actby Tarake DharmawardeneIntellectual Property Rights (IPR)by Dipti SahuTripartite Moaby tom232208 eby Shyamol BoseSimilar to ComplaintSkip carouselIPRCouncilsRevOrdinance27Jul2005Voted12DecJul2006Ipr Enforcement Mechanisms in India- AbstractWood v. Little Caesar, Ilitch, Shemami, et al - First Amended Complaint as FiledLegalMackaay_IP_CivilLawSyst-4Valuation of Taxpayer IP Assets (2012 Willamette)Futurising seminar slides : Proposal for a revision of the Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (Directive 2004/48/EC)business lawPhilosophy Paper FinalThe Public Domain 1IP LawThe Philosophy of Intellectual PropertyUnderstanding Copyright and Related RightsPractice Case IMPORTATRight of IntellectualMethodology TeachingUnit 7 ENT600 Intellectual PropertyIntellectual property lawMakerere University Ipm Policy (1)Catalogue eClaimant Advance Ip on traditional KnowledgeA Libertarian Critique of Intellectual Property - Butler Shaffer.pdfipr1Information ActIntellectual Property Rights (IPR)Tripartite Moa232208 e2nd Batch of Cases July 20Flancia vs CAfullComplaint