box1 header1
Entry Detail
Terms of Use The data on this site is for education, insights, and entertainment, and is not to be used for commercial purposes. If you want to use content for noncommercial purposes, be kind and give us due credit. To read the full Terms of Use, click here.
Options Conduct New Search
Copy Permalink to this Item
 
Village Person vs. Village People
Highest Court California Court of Appeal
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Business Entity of Artist(s)
Defendants Band Member(s)
Other Village People
Short Description The Village People, though their name and image was been well-preserved through the years and has undoubtedly become a staple reference in American pop culture, enjoyed only a brief period of success, between the years 1977 and 1979. The band was formed by a production company that owned all associated trademarks to the band's name and image. In their initial existence, Defendant was the "cop" persona and a lead singer in the band. After Defendant left the band in 1979, the group re-grouped numerous times with different members. Plaintiff in this case is the corporate entity formed by the other members, which received permission from the trademarks' owner. Near the end of the first decade of the 2000s, Defendant began to threaten Plaintiff and the band's new members, alleging their performances constituted "fakes" and consistently reiterating that he intended to "dry up" their commercial feasibility. He even attended various events in his cop uniform and intimated what appeared to be gun shot hand motions. After the sent a cease and desist letter and communicated with various third parties that intended to book the band, all explaining his intention to sue the band, Plaintiff brought actions for interference with contracts and business, unfair trade practices, and more. Defendant counter-claimed and asserted several affirmative defenses. Of importance to this court opinion, Defendant cited California's "Anti-SLAPP" statute, which allows Defendants to strike complaints that chill protected speech activities. Unfortunately for Defendant, the court found, first, that Plaintiff's suit arose from much more than his letter, a "pre-litigation communication," but also from his numerous other actions and blatant attempts to interfere with their success. Second, they had demonstrated a probable success on the merits of their complaint. Thus, Defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion was denied. - LSW

Legal Issues
Constitutional Law First Amendment Anti-SLAPP Statutes
Torts Economic Torts Interference with Contract, Business, Interests & Expectancy
  Negligence Negligent Interference with Contract, Business, Interests & Expectancy
  Privacy Torts Commercial Misappropriation of Name/Likeness
Trademarks & Unfair Competition State Statute/Common Law Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices


Opinions Sixuvus, Ltd. v. Willis
2010 WL 1676726
California Court of Appeal , April 27, 2010 ( No. D054989 )


Errors Do you see something that is not correct?
The Discography is an ongoing project. Some entries in the database are displayed in various stages of completion. If you see spelling or grammar issues, they are likely to be corrected in the near future as they're noticed by editors (they're on the "To Do" list, we promise). But If you notice errors regarding facts, legal conclusions, or other information, please contact us to let us know. We've done our best, but can't assure perfection. Thank you.


Related Searches Parties
Band Member(s) ( Defendant )
Business Entity of Artist(s) ( Plaintiff )
Village People ( Other )

Legal Issues
Constitutional Law / First Amendment / Anti-SLAPP Statutes
Torts / Economic Torts / Interference with Contract, Business, Interests & Expectancy
Torts / Negligence / Negligent Interference with Contract, Business, Interests & Expectancy
Torts / Privacy Torts / Commercial Misappropriation of Name/Likeness
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / State Statute/Common Law / Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices

Courts
California Court of Appeal (highest court)


permalink to this entry